A question for ex-cable believers [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : A question for ex-cable believers



musicoverall
01-22-2005, 09:56 AM
Ok, so you're past your audiophile cable belief days because you participated in some blind tests and couldn't reliably distinguish your old audiophile cables from generic ones. You're now convinced there are no audible difference in cables. Since your transformation, have your ears ever fooled you during, say, a friends cable audition or in any other instance? Ever talk yourself out of a difference you thought you heard because it was a sighted audition?

magictooth
01-23-2005, 02:38 PM
Ok, so you're past your audiophile cable belief days because you participated in some blind tests and couldn't reliably distinguish your old audiophile cables from generic ones. You're now convinced there are no audible difference in cables. Since your transformation, have your ears ever fooled you during, say, a friends cable audition or in any other instance? Ever talk yourself out of a difference you thought you heard because it was a sighted audition?
It's hard to compare because of different room acoustics, equipment, etc. When presented with a sighted cable audition (only a couple times in recent memory), I usually give them my spiel about blind testing. If the difference is so huge and glaring, you should be able to hear it blind. Take the example of my old CEC TT vs. my newer Rega. The difference is 100% noticeable. If you have normal hearing, you will hear the difference. When people say their power conditioner or cable makes a night/day difference, then you should be able to hear the difference blind with that kind of accuracy.

E-Stat has made a valid point about the possibility of needing an extended period of time to be able to hear the differences. RGA frequently quotes Audio Note's Peter Q's "Road to Audio Hell" (which by the way is such a biased, unbelievably ridiculous, and self-serving essay that I found it difficult to finish reading without retching). Maybe doing cable tests require a longer time frame to truly appreciate. In this case, a blind test over whatever period the subject feels is adequate (the testing as described in the other thread) should do the trick. It remains only with the particular audiophile whether he is willing to expend the energy to get his wife/friend to switch cables at random whenever he requests. Then he only needs to keep track of which cable he thinks he is listening to.

I can only think of two reasons why they don't want to do this test: 1) they are lazy; 2) they are unwilling to truly see what reality has to offer. Maybe there are other reasons that others are willing to elucidate upon.

markw
01-23-2005, 05:01 PM
retching). Maybe doing cable tests require a longer time frame to truly appreciate. In this case, a blind test over whatever period the subject feels is adequate (the testing as described in the other thread) should do the trick. It remains only with the particular audiophile whether he is willing to expend the energy to get his wife/friend to switch cables at random whenever he requests. Then he only needs to keep track of which cable he thinks he is listening to.NAh.. .that's just too, too simple. It would have taken a genius to come up with that. ;)

Tony_Montana
01-23-2005, 07:59 PM
A question for ex-cable believers.

That question might be a loaded one.

Since been posted here and on AA audio forum, I've never met anybody that actually have changed their mind about cables because of any type of cable evaluation test (be it DBT or not). So when you address your question to "ex-cable lovers" or "ex-cable nayers", you might be addressing a very tint tiny tiny minority (if any).

Those who tend to believe that cables makes a 'big" difference, seem to stick to that ideology no matter how many test they have done or been presented to that indicate other wise. And those that don't, tend to fall into same category also (present company included :D).

Of course it won't be fair to say that no body have made any progress in either direction, but it is rare to see a full blown conversion.

musicoverall
01-24-2005, 06:39 AM
Of course it won't be fair to say that no body have made any progress in either direction, but it is rare to see a full blown conversion.

Both markw and magictooth have posted that they have been "saved" from the evil snare of cables. There are several others around here that are naysayers, although they may have always been. Apparently, though, this thread didn't generate any interest. :)

musicoverall
01-24-2005, 06:49 AM
It's hard to compare because of different room acoustics, equipment, etc. When presented with a sighted cable audition (only a couple times in recent memory), I usually give them my spiel about blind testing. If the difference is so huge and glaring, you should be able to hear it blind. Take the example of my old CEC TT vs. my newer Rega. The difference is 100% noticeable. If you have normal hearing, you will hear the difference. When people say their power conditioner or cable makes a night/day difference, then you should be able to hear the difference blind with that kind of accuracy.

E-Stat has made a valid point about the possibility of needing an extended period of time to be able to hear the differences. RGA frequently quotes Audio Note's Peter Q's "Road to Audio Hell" (which by the way is such a biased, unbelievably ridiculous, and self-serving essay that I found it difficult to finish reading without retching). Maybe doing cable tests require a longer time frame to truly appreciate. In this case, a blind test over whatever period the subject feels is adequate (the testing as described in the other thread) should do the trick. It remains only with the particular audiophile whether he is willing to expend the energy to get his wife/friend to switch cables at random whenever he requests. Then he only needs to keep track of which cable he thinks he is listening to.

I can only think of two reasons why they don't want to do this test: 1) they are lazy; 2) they are unwilling to truly see what reality has to offer. Maybe there are other reasons that others are willing to elucidate upon.

I've heard (somewhere) that acoustic memory is so short that long term tests are deemed unreliable by whomever it is that determines these things. So my reason for not doing this test is because it's pointless. It won't prove anything to anyone. Should I fail, I will blame the test. Should I pass, you will blame the test (You and I in this case means the naysayers and yeasayers). It's not going to show us anything about reality.

I do agree that this test seems to be the most valid and honest method of blind testing. It's too bad we can't simply test as we would pictures of colors with slight differences, holding them up and rapidly flipping our eyes from one picture to the other.

Gross differences such as turntable example should indeed be picked up by rapid fire blind testing. Subtle differences might not, IMHO.

magictooth
01-24-2005, 07:15 AM
That question might be a loaded one.

Since been posted here and on AA audio forum, I've never met anybody that actually have changed their mind about cables because of any type of cable evaluation test (be it DBT or not). So when you address your question to "ex-cable lovers" or "ex-cable nayers", you might be addressing a very tint tiny tiny minority (if any).

Those who tend to believe that cables makes a 'big" difference, seem to stick to that ideology no matter how many test they have done or been presented to that indicate other wise. And those that don't, tend to fall into same category also (present company included :D).

Of course it won't be fair to say that no body have made any progress in either direction, but it is rare to see a full blown conversion.
I've changed my mind about cables. I thought I used to be able to hear a difference, but not any longer. I am certainly willing to try different cables, but I will insist on a blind test.

magictooth
01-24-2005, 07:19 AM
I've heard (somewhere) that acoustic memory is so short that long term tests are deemed unreliable by whomever it is that determines these things. So my reason for not doing this test is because it's pointless. It won't prove anything to anyone. Should I fail, I will blame the test. Should I pass, you will blame the test (You and I in this case means the naysayers and yeasayers). It's not going to show us anything about reality.

I do agree that this test seems to be the most valid and honest method of blind testing. It's too bad we can't simply test as we would pictures of colors with slight differences, holding them up and rapidly flipping our eyes from one picture to the other.

Gross differences such as turntable example should indeed be picked up by rapid fire blind testing. Subtle differences might not, IMHO.
I'd be interested to see any test that has been passed whether it is long term or short term. I think that your original post had a question about whether people have failed a gross difference test so I included my observations about my TTs.

The problem with the Audio Lab is that it is www.audioreview.com's thread purgatory. When the mods don't want a particular line of reasoning, off it goes to the Lab. That's probably why you don't get as many replies as when you post to HT or speakers or even the cables forum.

E-Stat
01-24-2005, 09:53 AM
The problem with the Audio Lab is that it is www.audioreview.com's thread purgatory. When the mods don't want a particular line of reasoning, off it goes to the Lab. That's probably why you don't get as many replies as when you post to HT or speakers or even the cables forum.
Let me begin my comments by saying that although I was asked to be a moderator, I am in no way affiliated with the management of this site. The following is my perspective.

The reason for creating the Lab forum (a situation found with another audio based forum ) was twofold: to provide a place for those to discuss strictly scientific testing matters and results and to allow those who are casual listeners to offer their opinions elsewhere without having to provide a thesis paper to substantiate that opinion. The tone of many a post in the cable forum got quite nasty (on both sides). Debate on differences of opinion are one thing, but there really is no good reason for questioning others' intelligence.

I really don't understand the "purgatory" comment as there are no special requirements to either view or post here. I have seen a few "look over in Audio Lab for the X thread" posts found in the other forums for those who are concerned that others won't see them.

I believe that there has been an overall improvement in the tone of posts since then.

rw

magictooth
01-24-2005, 02:24 PM
Let me begin my comments by saying that although I was asked to be a moderator, I am in no way affiliated with the management of this site. The following is my perspective.

The reason for creating the Lab forum (a situation found with another audio based forum ) was twofold: to provide a place for those to discuss strictly scientific testing matters and results and to allow those who are casual listeners to offer their opinions elsewhere without having to provide a thesis paper to substantiate that opinion. The tone of many a post in the cable forum got quite nasty (on both sides). Debate on differences of opinion are one thing, but there really is no good reason for questioning others' intelligence.

I really don't understand the "purgatory" comment as there are no special requirements to either view or post here. I have seen a few "look over in Audio Lab for the X thread" posts found in the other forums for those who are concerned that others won't see them.

I believe that there has been an overall improvement in the tone of posts since then.

rw

The reason I call it thread purgatory is because it is the only place for a naysayer POV. Instead of before where free reign in cables was allowed, only a yeasayer attittude is allowed. When people have cable questions, they go to - guess where?..... The Cable Forum. However, free debate isn't allowed there. They don't get the full gamut of the knowledge out there.

In order to be fair, the debate should be allowed to run free in cables. A new forum similar to the Audio Lab, but for yeasayers only, could then be created to allow people who believe in their cables a place for uninterrupted....well, never mind, this is a family site.

I realize that this is a pipe dream because of financial reasons. It wouldn't really do to have many of the advertisers' products shot down in a regular, highly viewed forum.

E-Stat
01-24-2005, 02:38 PM
The reason I call it thread purgatory is because it is the only place for a naysayer POV.
I think you misunderstand the guidelines. If you wish to challenge someone's opinon with "scientific proof", then here is the place to do it. You are free to state your opinion, however, elsewhere. A search shows 15 posts in the cable forum where you have done so.

rw

Tony_Montana
01-24-2005, 03:14 PM
Both markw and magictooth have posted that they have been "saved" from the evil snare of cables.

Those two people don't count :D

So you are saying that they used to be full fledge cable believers?

Most that have electronic background (I assuming Mark and Magictooth have), tend to have their doubt when it comes to cables. And if one have doubt, they can't be a full fledge cable believers (or used to be :))


I am certainly willing to try different cables, but I will insist on a blind test

I wished everybody have that approach when it comes to cables. Although [no instantaneous] DBT is not the last word in testing out cables (there still may be some inaccuracy due to memory being involve), but it is a step in the right direction :)

Woochifer
01-24-2005, 07:41 PM
I actually formed my opinion on cables by doing blind tests, and I was able to perceive differences. But, they were so minor and subtle that I just find the whole cable debate to be laughable when you're talking about potentially thousands of dollars invested in this.

My cable test was one that can easily be done in real time. The trick is to not only randomize which cables you use, but to also randomize whether you switch out the L and/or R channels. This means that it is possible at any time to be listening to a mixed pair of speaker cables, but at no time do you know whether you're listening to a mixed pair of cables or a matched pair. To make this test a valid one, I used a monophonic source. Any differences caused by room acoustics or channel balances would be accounted for because the cables are swapped across the L and R channels. After a few trials, my friends and I were able to tell when a mixed pair was used most of the time. But, we were not able to figure out which set of cables sounded "better". Overall, nobody thought that the differences were obvious or even worth obsessing about. They were very minute.

Compared to sighted listenings that I've done, the blind tests are a lot better for addressing the true magnitude of differences between components. Differences that you might have thought were "night and day" during sighted listenings might be disappointingly small under blind conditions. It never ceases to amaze me how many golden ears will nitpick and criticize blind listenings, when they've never actually tried them out for themselves.

For my money, I would rather invest in system improvements that are obvious and measureable such as speaker upgrades and room treatments.

magictooth
01-24-2005, 07:44 PM
Those two people don't count :D

So you are saying that they used to be full fledge cable believers?

Most that have electronic background (I assuming Mark and Magictooth have), tend to have their doubt when it comes to cables. And if one have doubt, they can't be a full fledge cable believers (or used to be :))



I wished everybody have that approach when it comes to cables. Although [no instantaneous] DBT is not the last word in testing out cables (there still may be some inaccuracy due to memory being involve), but it is a step in the right direction :)
I actually have no electronics background other than intro level physics about 15 years ago. I did believe at one time that cables made a difference. A couple years ago, I did blind testing and was extremely surprised at the result. It's a bit of a humbling experience to find out that you do not have the golden ears that you once supposed.

magictooth
01-24-2005, 07:53 PM
I actually formed my opinion on cables by doing blind tests, and I was able to perceive differences. But, they were so minor and subtle that I just find the whole cable debate to be laughable when you're talking about potentially thousands of dollars invested in this.

My cable test was one that can easily be done in real time. The trick is to not only randomize which cables you use, but to also randomize whether you switch out the L and/or R channels. This means that it is possible at any time to be listening to a mixed pair of speaker cables, but at no time do you know whether you're listening to a mixed pair of cables or a matched pair. To make this test a valid one, I used a monophonic source. Any differences caused by room acoustics or channel balances would be accounted for because the cables are swapped across the L and R channels. After a few trials, my friends and I were able to tell when a mixed pair was used most of the time. But, we were not able to figure out which set of cables sounded "better". Overall, nobody thought that the differences were obvious or even worth obsessing about. They were very minute.

Compared to sighted listenings that I've done, the blind tests are a lot better for addressing the true magnitude of differences between components. Differences that you might have thought were "night and day" during sighted listenings might be disappointingly small under blind conditions. It never ceases to amaze me how many golden ears will nitpick and criticize blind listenings, when they've never actually tried them out for themselves.

For my money, I would rather invest in system improvements that are obvious and measureable such as speaker upgrades and room treatments.
Interesting idea. I will try to see if I can tell a difference in ICs this way. My DVDP has multiple outs and I can try using that machine. I agree about rather investing in other parts of the system.

FLZapped
01-26-2005, 10:28 AM
I think you misunderstand the guidelines. If you wish to challenge someone's opinon with "scientific proof", then here is the place to do it. You are free to state your opinion, however, elsewhere. A search shows 15 posts in the cable forum where you have done so.

rw


Oh how quickly we forget the original name(and obvious intent) for this forum.....

-Bruce

E-Stat
01-26-2005, 01:41 PM
Oh how quickly we forget the original name(and obvious intent) for this forum.....
While I would agree with your comment regarding other threads found in this forum, I find no anecdotal testimonies in this one. On the contrary, the only "test" discussed is Woochifer's random blind cable test. Have I missed something?

rw

musicoverall
01-26-2005, 01:48 PM
While I would agree with your comment regarding other threads found in this forum, I find no anecdotal testimonies in this one. On the contrary, the only "test" discussed is Woochifer's random blind cable test. Have I missed something?

rw

Is anecdotal testimony banned from the Audio Lab?

E-Stat
01-26-2005, 02:25 PM
Is anecdotal testimony banned from the Audio Lab?
The intent for this forum is to facilitate discussion of audio from a scientific standpoint. I would not use the term "banned", but certainly it is not the focus. Conversely, discussions of blind testing and the such is not the focus of other forums such as cable. Having said that, a quick search reveals quite a few such discussions there.

In the absense of specific guidelines (though both Geoffcin and I have both requested said), I have focused my moderating with attempting to maintain a non-volatile tone. To date, I have only interceded with some blatantly inappropriate posts regarding language completely unrelated to any audio issues.

rw

RobotCzar
02-04-2005, 09:08 PM
I
I do agree that this test seems to be the most valid and honest method of blind testing. It's too bad we can't simply test as we would pictures of colors with slight differences, holding them up and rapidly flipping our eyes from one picture to the other.


While audio is a dynamic medium, the use of an ABX devices allows the audio equivalent of rapidly flipping from one picture to the other, Even tho music constantly changes, you can play a short segment over and over, switching at practically every point over the duration of the segment. You also have the option of playing a sound that does not change like a pure sine wave or white noise. It is a well-know fact that people can detect lower distortion levels with pure tones. If you cannot hear a difference with some set of pure tones, you will not hear any difference with music.

As for subtle differences, there are long-established statistical methods for finding small differences. One can find as small a difference as one likes by merely taking more samples (e.g., trials). By adopting the proper statsitical design, one would be able to test for very very small differences.

Listening to comparisons longer is just going to make hearing potential differences harder, not easier; but there is nothing stoping a person from taking as long as they like, especially using an ABX.

When somebody says "I can certainly hear differences in cables you tin-eard midfi oaf." one expects them to take a simple blind, level matched test and show that they can. One does not expect them to say, "oh, I can only hear the difference after listening for three months. The true believers will SAY anything to preserve their illusions, I and others would prefer they actually DO something to show that they can hear differences.

mystic
02-04-2005, 11:23 PM
While audio is a dynamic medium, the use of an ABX devices allows the audio equivalent of rapidly flipping from one picture to the other, Even tho music constantly changes, you can play a short segment over and over, switching at practically every point over the duration of the segment. You also have the option of playing a sound that does not change like a pure sine wave or white noise. It is a well-know fact that people can detect lower distortion levels with pure tones. If you cannot hear a difference with some set of pure tones, you will not hear any difference with music.

As for subtle differences, there are long-established statistical methods for finding small differences. One can find as small a difference as one likes by merely taking more samples (e.g., trials). By adopting the proper statsitical design, one would be able to test for very very small differences.

Listening to comparisons longer is just going to make hearing potential differences harder, not easier; but there is nothing stoping a person from taking as long as they like, especially using an ABX.

When somebody says "I can certainly hear differences in cables you tin-eard midfi oaf." one expects them to take a simple blind, level matched test and show that they can. One does not expect them to say, "oh, I can only hear the difference after listening for three months. The true believers will SAY anything to preserve their illusions, I and others would prefer they actually DO something to show that they can hear differences.

It does seem reasonable that a listener who is certain he can hear a difference beween two components in sighted listening should be able to do so in blinded listening. But it also may be reasonable to question the validity of blinded testing used for such a purpose. It would seem fair to ask if the testing does what it is supposed to do. But how do you test the test?

A starting place in taking a critical look at blinded testing might be to look at positive results. What kinds of subtle audible differences in components have been detected through blinded testing? Are any studies available? I'm not entirely sure what I mean by "subtle," but if the difference is very very obvious, the testing isn't being tested.

shokhead
02-05-2005, 04:55 AM
Maybe the smallest difference in very high performing equipment otherwise i'm stick'n to some plain old "good" cables and wires and spend the rest of my money on some cd's.

markw
02-05-2005, 06:19 AM
A starting place in taking a critical look at blinded testing might be to look at positive results. What kinds of subtle audible differences in components have been detected through blinded testing? Are any studies available? I'm not entirely sure what I mean by "subtle," but if the difference is very very obvious, the testing isn't being tested.Given that prices in cables can go from several single digit dollars well into the four and five digit range, I would expect much, much more than subtle differences. For me, that holds true for a 10x price difference as well..

musicoverall
02-05-2005, 07:12 AM
"I can certainly hear differences in cables you tin-eard midfi oaf." .

You read my mind! I say that all the time! LOL!

musicoverall
02-05-2005, 07:17 AM
[QUOTE=markw]Given that prices in cables can go from several single digit dollars well into the four and five digit range, I would expect much, much more than subtle differences. QUOTE]

Your expectation is fine - for you! Certainly the laws of diminishing returns go through the roof on expensive cables. But if something is important enough to someone i.e reproducing the sound of live music in the home, it's not unreasonable that they would spend a lot of money for a small improvement. Look how hard runners work to shave a few 10ths of a second off their time. Would that be worth it to me? Nope. But it is to them.

shokhead
02-05-2005, 10:54 AM
They are racing against a time. You are spending money. I know what you are saying. I've seen cyclist spend 200 bucks for a new saddle they did'nt need because it was 10g lighter. They did'nt race but got it anyhow and to be that is dumb. For me it would be dumb to spend 100 bucks for a single 3ft cable. I'd rather just get better equipment for more of a benifit then a $$ cable,but thats me. Now if i had high end stuff,then maybe. I kinda lean more on the hype then substance.

RobotCzar
02-05-2005, 05:09 PM
It does seem reasonable that a listener who is certain he can hear a difference beween two components in sighted listening should be able to do so in blinded listening. But it also may be reasonable to question the validity of blinded testing used for such a purpose. It would seem fair to ask if the testing does what it is supposed to do. But how do you test the test?

A starting place in taking a critical look at blinded testing might be to look at positive results. What kinds of subtle audible differences in components have been detected through blinded testing? Are any studies available? I'm not entirely sure what I mean by "subtle," but if the difference is very very obvious, the testing isn't being tested.

First, let me point out that blind testing is the only testing that would be consider valid scientifically or legally. The effect of expecation on perception is so strong and so evident that reasonable testing of human perception can only be done with blinded subjects. All of, say, testing of the efficacy of drugs is done using single or, more often double blind tests. There simply is no valid alternative.

You are quite correct in pointing out that positive results are important in judging testing. Note that the high end crowd, which tries to discredit blind testing, act as if blind testing never gives a positive result. Well, that is not true, of course, several quite subtle effects can be discriminated in blind testing. Perhaps the best example is the ability of people to detect small differences in volume. I have read than under the right conditions (with tests tones) people can detect differences of 0.1 dB. The decibel unit was chosen based on what differneces in volume people can relatively easily hear (i.e., 1 dB). The ablility of people to detect such small differences in volume is why tested components MUST be level matched to within a 0.1 of a dB.

The tests that were used to establish limits of human hearing that one hears quoted (such as the ability of some to hear out to 20KHz and/or distortion of 1%) were, of course, established using blind tests. Nothing is more scientifically or logically illiterate than attacks on the validity of blind testing.

You cannot test the test--some high enders have tried that but it is illogical. You can't assume something should be detected and use it to test the test. It is the test itself that determines what can be detected. This is elementary scientific method.

markw
02-05-2005, 07:02 PM
Given that prices in cables can go from several single digit dollars well into the four and five digit range, I would expect much, much more than subtle differences.


Your expectation is fine - for you! Certainly the laws of diminishing returns go through the roof on expensive cables. But if something is important enough to someone i.e reproducing the sound of live music in the home, it's not unreasonable that they would spend a lot of money for a small improvement. Look how hard runners work to shave a few 10ths of a second off their time. Would that be worth it to me? Nope. But it is to them. Well, the more I invested in this tweak, the more I'd try to convince myself that it was worth it. And, with the advertising and hype being what it is, that would be a very easy thing to do.

Without any serious testing I would probably go through life fat, happy and stupid believing that my money was well spent. Of course, after dropping a tremendous amount of $$ on this, I would be loathe to perform the simple test I've descibed many times previously in this forum only to find out that I couldn't tell the difference. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Sometimes, ignorance truly is bliss.

And, that 1/10th of a second time decrease can be measured but, then again, many other factors can easily have made more of an effect as well.

mystic
02-06-2005, 01:47 AM
First, let me point out that blind testing is the only testing that would be consider valid scientifically or legally. The effect of expecation on perception is so strong and so evident that reasonable testing of human perception can only be done with blinded subjects. All of, say, testing of the efficacy of drugs is done using single or, more often double blind tests. There simply is no valid alternative.

You are quite correct in pointing out that positive results are important in judging testing. Note that the high end crowd, which tries to discredit blind testing, act as if blind testing never gives a positive result. Well, that is not true, of course, several quite subtle effects can be discriminated in blind testing. Perhaps the best example is the ability of people to detect small differences in volume. I have read than under the right conditions (with tests tones) people can detect differences of 0.1 dB. The decibel unit was chosen based on what differneces in volume people can relatively easily hear (i.e., 1 dB). The ablility of people to detect such small differences in volume is why tested components MUST be level matched to within a 0.1 of a dB.

The tests that were used to establish limits of human hearing that one hears quoted (such as the ability of some to hear out to 20KHz and/or distortion of 1%) were, of course, established using blind tests. Nothing is more scientifically or logically illiterate than attacks on the validity of blind testing.

You cannot test the test--some high enders have tried that but it is illogical. You can't assume something should be detected and use it to test the test. It is the test itself that determines what can be detected. This is elementary scientific method.

For heaven's sake, I feel like you are accusing me of blasphemy for even considering that blinded testing for audible differences in audio components might be less than perfect. I thought science encouraged inquiry. If you are so defensive about the testing, maybe there IS something wrong with it.

I haven't seen a blinded test on cables with positive results, but there are a lot of listeners who claim to hear differences who have not been tested. Hopefully, we will see a few reliable positives in the future and blinded testing will be vindicated among audiophiles. Perhaps the quality of the testing, which has been lacking, also will improve. Unless there are some positive results for cables, the validity of blinded listening tests may continue to be questioned.

How do you test the test? I don't know, but it's interesting to think about. How did those high enders you mentioned try to do it?

markw
02-06-2005, 09:27 AM
Let's look at an analogy. Take Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monstor, Aliens or whatever you like.

Some say they exist.

Others say they don't.

Who ya gonna believe?

Answer?

Simple. Whomever you wish.

Now, some canny characters may want more than just heresay and ask for some evidence either way. Again, not a problem.

Throw out tons of money into research. Send out teams of investigators. Spend years lookng for evidence either way.

If, after a period of time, no evidence either way can be produced, you can come to either of two conclusions.

1) The research was faulty and was not adequate to prove or disprove the existence of such phenomona. So, since it failed to prove that it does NOT exist, by default, it must exist.

... or some might see things the other way.

2) Since no evidence could be found that such phenomona does exist, it's most likely that such phenomona does not exist.

In any case, I would let my grandkids swim in Loch Ness with no fears of them being eaten by the monster. I'll also let them hike and camp in the woods (with adequate supervision) and not worry about Sasquatch kidnapping them.

As far as cables go, The companies that manufacturer them DO have a vested interest in this. Any cable company that could prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that their cable was better than anyone else's would have a gold mine.

The downside to this is that what if a "fair" test proved that there actually were NO appreciable differences in cables? A whole sub set of the Hi Fi manufacturing industry would go bust, save for a few diehards who know more than science.

No, I don't think they are in too much of a hurry to put this myth to rest...

musicoverall
02-06-2005, 01:48 PM
Well, the more I invested in this tweak, the more I'd try to convince myself that it was worth it..

I've taken the opposite route. Listening to different cables convinced me that it was worth it and THEN I made the investment. ;)

markw
02-06-2005, 02:25 PM
I've taken the opposite route. Listening to different cables convinced me that it was worth it and THEN I made the investment. ;)Unless you are immune to your own personal attitudes, beliefs and expectations, your judgment is clouded* by knowing what you are listening to.

*so sayeth the Shadow.

E-Stat
02-06-2005, 06:30 PM
Unless you are immune to your own personal attitudes, beliefs and expectations, your judgment is clouded* by knowing what you are listening to. .
So? I recently heard a power cord that I DID NOT want for it to be better than what I already have. Guess what sparky?

rw

mystic
02-06-2005, 09:50 PM
Let's look at an analogy. Take Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monstor, Aliens or whatever you like.

Some say they exist.

Others say they don't.

Who ya gonna believe?

Answer?

Simple. Whomever you wish.

Now, some canny characters may want more than just heresay and ask for some evidence either way. Again, not a problem.

Throw out tons of money into research. Send out teams of investigators. Spend years lookng for evidence either way.

If, after a period of time, no evidence either way can be produced, you can come to either of two conclusions.

1) The research was faulty and was not adequate to prove or disprove the existence of such phenomona. So, since it failed to prove that it does NOT exist, by default, it must exist.

... or some might see things the other way.

2) Since no evidence could be found that such phenomona does exist, it's most likely that such phenomona does not exist.

In any case, I would let my grandkids swim in Loch Ness with no fears of them being eaten by the monster. I'll also let them hike and camp in the woods (with adequate supervision) and not worry about Sasquatch kidnapping them.

As far as cables go, The companies that manufacturer them DO have a vested interest in this. Any cable company that could prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that their cable was better than anyone else's would have a gold mine.

The downside to this is that what if a "fair" test proved that there actually were NO appreciable differences in cables? A whole sub set of the Hi Fi manufacturing industry would go bust, save for a few diehards who know more than science.

No, I don't think they are in too much of a hurry to put this myth to rest...

Wait a minute! Are you saying your skepticisim about cryptozoological creatures makes you smarter than cable believers? If so, I ain't buying it. I know some pretty dim-witted people who don't believe in Big-foot and Nessie. And I know some pretty intelligent people who claim to hear differences in cables. So there!

markw
02-07-2005, 04:09 AM
So? I recently heard a power cord that I DID NOT want for it to be better than what I already have. Guess what sparky?

rwYou are working on the presumption that ther e ARE differences in power cords. Another faith based belief without valid proof that keeps a substantial portion of companies in business .

markw
02-07-2005, 04:14 AM
Wait a minute! Are you saying your skepticisim about cryptozoological creatures makes you smarter than cable believers?No, just a bit more discriminating (or less gullible) on knowing what to believe and what not to believe. Through the power of suggestion and illusion I've seen David Copperfield make huge objects disappear. without discriminating thought I might believe that it was real.

Fact... If, in this day and age, knowing how much the mind (and not the ears) controls what we (think we) hear and valid proof cannot be obtained that cable differences are audiable, logical people would rightly think several times before buying into it.

Of course, it's your money. You can buy whatever you want. Howsa bout some $500 wooden knobs with magical lacquer to improve the sound of your equipment?

E-Stat
02-07-2005, 04:45 AM
You are working on the presumption that ther e ARE differences in power cords. Another faith based belief without valid proof that keeps a substantial portion of companies in business .
No. You have that bass ackwards. I was hoping to NOT hear any differences.

rw

RobotCzar
02-07-2005, 11:16 AM
For heaven's sake, I feel like you are accusing me of blasphemy for even considering that blinded testing for audible differences in audio components might be less than perfect. I thought science encouraged inquiry. If you are so defensive about the testing, maybe there IS something wrong with it.
Science doesn't have blsphemy, that is for true believers. It does, however, have a set of procedural rules and, of course, belief in the rules of logic. So, I guess you can blaspheme against logic, and that is what you have done. I am defensive about testing because it HAS been attacked by the high end--often. In fact, the high end believers in this very forum have used segregation and censorship against scientific testing, so I am not alone in my defensiveness.

I'm also defensive about it because some people think they can offer up opinions without much evidence or logic and then use the openess of scientific inquiry to give some validity to their views. Science does encourage inquiry, I hope you are inquirying about blind testing. I thought I was answering your query: you cannot test the test.


I haven't seen a blinded test on cables with positive results, but there are a lot of listeners who claim to hear differences who have not been tested. Hopefully, we will see a few reliable positives in the future and blinded testing will be vindicated among audiophiles. Perhaps the quality of the testing, which has been lacking, also will improve. Unless there are some positive results for cables, the validity of blinded listening tests may continue to be questioned.

While science is open and encourages inquiry, it doesn't operate on a vote count or majority rule. I can quote several scientists on the uselessness of data from uncontrolled sources. Such data is totally useless, so it really doesn't matter how many people claim to hear differences. Additionally, people may hear differences, but what I (and I believe those with a rational viewpoint) do not believe are the factors these listeners identify and the source of the differences they hear. As they have not controlled potential sources of hearing differences, they do not know what the source is....they just pick the one they want to believe. The point of my other base post is that it is proven that what listeners CLAIM to hear is unreliable. Claims aren't a factor in scientific method, evidence is. It has been over 30 year since people claimed to hear differences in cables or amps, so far none (to may knowledge) had demostrated it. As hearing such differences defies both logic and established data, it is extremely unlikely they every will. Moreover, we have no reason to beieve they can until someone does.

Blinding removes one possible source of hearing differences (basically, the placebo effect). If you don't blind, you can't be sure what is being heard is not do to this effect. It is that simple.


How do you test the test? I don't know, but it's interesting to think about. How did those high enders you mentioned try to do it?

I suggested that you cannot test the test. An example of an idiotic attempt to do so is when an audiophile group played cassette recordings of CDs to a large group and also played the originals (the group was single blinded). When the group failed to be able to distinguish the two sources of what they heard, the creators of this "experiment" clamed this prooved that blind testing was flawed because "everybody knows" cassette recordings sound worse than CDs. See, they must make an assumption prior to the test and that assumption is the very thing being tested. That is a logical conflict. The scientific view (in my opinion) is that we must believe the results of the test, NOT the assumption. This group simply could not distinguish the sources under the conditions of this test. Their attempt to prove otherwise was misguided, dumb, or both. Probably both.

mystic
02-07-2005, 10:17 PM
No, just a bit more discriminating (or less gullible) on knowing what to believe and what not to believe. Through the power of suggestion and illusion I've seen David Copperfield make huge objects disappear. without discriminating thought I might believe that it was real.

Fact... If, in this day and age, knowing how much the mind (and not the ears) controls what we (think we) hear and valid proof cannot be obtained that cable differences are audiable, logical people would rightly think several times before buying into it.

Of course, it's your money. You can buy whatever you want. Howsa bout some $500 wooden knobs with magical lacquer to improve the sound of your equipment?

Still, you seem to think you are superior to the cable believers in some way. You are wise, but they are gullible. You know what to believe and what not to believe, but they don't. You are too savvy to let your mind and senses mislead you. They are naive, and don't know what's going on. You laugh at those chumps (wanna buy some magic nobs? snicker, snicker). And they probably are laughing back, and think they have it over you in some way.

It looks like you want it to be known you take pride in being dupe-proof. The emphasis on that makes me wonder if you have had some bad experiences with placing trust in people. Caution can be right, but being overly cautious can get in the way of experiencing and enjoying new things.

If you tried a new interconnect or other cable in sighted listening and thought it improved the sound of your system, why wouldn't you be content to just let it go at that?

mystic
02-08-2005, 03:16 AM
Science doesn't have blsphemy, that is for true believers. It does, however, have a set of procedural rules and, of course, belief in the rules of logic. So, I guess you can blaspheme against logic, and that is what you have done. I am defensive about testing because it HAS been attacked by the high end--often. In fact, the high end believers in this very forum have used segregation and censorship against scientific testing, so I am not alone in my defensiveness.

I'm also defensive about it because some people think they can offer up opinions without much evidence or logic and then use the openess of scientific inquiry to give some validity to their views. Science does encourage inquiry, I hope you are inquirying about blind testing. I thought I was answering your query: you cannot test the test.



While science is open and encourages inquiry, it doesn't operate on a vote count or majority rule. I can quote several scientists on the uselessness of data from uncontrolled sources. Such data is totally useless, so it really doesn't matter how many people claim to hear differences. Additionally, people may hear differences, but what I (and I believe those with a rational viewpoint) do not believe are the factors these listeners identify and the source of the differences they hear. As they have not controlled potential sources of hearing differences, they do not know what the source is....they just pick the one they want to believe. The point of my other base post is that it is proven that what listeners CLAIM to hear is unreliable. Claims aren't a factor in scientific method, evidence is. It has been over 30 year since people claimed to hear differences in cables or amps, so far none (to may knowledge) had demostrated it. As hearing such differences defies both logic and established data, it is extremely unlikely they every will. Moreover, we have no reason to beieve they can until someone does.

Blinding removes one possible source of hearing differences (basically, the placebo effect). If you don't blind, you can't be sure what is being heard is not do to this effect. It is that simple.



I suggested that you cannot test the test. An example of an idiotic attempt to do so is when an audiophile group played cassette recordings of CDs to a large group and also played the originals (the group was single blinded). When the group failed to be able to distinguish the two sources of what they heard, the creators of this "experiment" clamed this prooved that blind testing was flawed because "everybody knows" cassette recordings sound worse than CDs. See, they must make an assumption prior to the test and that assumption is the very thing being tested. That is a logical conflict. The scientific view (in my opinion) is that we must believe the results of the test, NOT the assumption. This group simply could not distinguish the sources under the conditions of this test. Their attempt to prove otherwise was misguided, dumb, or both. Probably both.

I know there is a conflict between what large numbers of people report they hear and the results of a small number of listening test. I also know the quality of these experiments has been questioned here on AR. I am not comfortable extrapolating the results of these tests, and concluding that all wires sound the same and always will. If you see my position as illogical, please explain why. In my opinion, the correct view is the evidence is inconclusive.

In looking at possible reasons for the conflict, I don't see why anything should be off limits. However, perhaps "test the test" is not the best way to say that I thought blinded testing in audio should be examined. It might be better to ask if blinded testing for audible differences in equipment, as it has been practiced, does what it is supposed to do. This could be a broader and more interesting subject. Obviously, it is supposed to be an unbiased way of determining what the listener hears. But there could be more. Is it supposed to change the behavior of test subjects, for example, or do listeners who fail to verify their sighted listening claims in blinded tests go back to the same claims when they return to sighted listening?


I hadn't heard about the CD/tape experiment. I don't see anything wrong with that kind of test if it's done right, although it would have been better double blind. However, it is not a "test of the test," but a test of the listener's ability to tell the difference between CD and tape recordings. If the subjects were from the general population, and took the test cold, I'm not surprised they couldn't tell the difference. I would be surprised if results were negative for listeners with some practice who claimed they could hear a difference before being tested.

Thank you for a thorough reply. I appreciate your taking the time to talk.

markw
02-08-2005, 03:53 AM
If you tried a new interconnect or other cable in sighted listening and thought it improved the sound of your system, why wouldn't you be content to just let it go at that?MAny years ago I DID pick up a hi glitz cable for a pretty penny. I was impressed and inviterd my neighbor/friend, also a hi fi buff, in for a listen.

Can you imagine? The fool could not hear the obvious glaring improvements I heard!

We discussed the matter and came up with a simple test. Since he already had a key to my place (we fed each other's cats and took in the mail when we were away) and we worked different shifts, he proposed I keep a notepad and note, every day what speaker cable I was listening to. His part of thge bargain was to slip in when I wasn't home and switch the cables (or not) and note in HIS notebook what cable was hooked up.

After three weeks we compared notes. Guess what? almost exactly 50/50, or what I precieved to be hearing had no relevance to which cable was in use.

So, in answer to your question, because I admit that I am only human and subject to my attitudes, beliefs and expectations. Any sighted listening is subject to these. This simple, free, no cost, no pressure test proved that quite easily.

Anyone who claims to be immune to their attitudes, beliefs and expectations when dealing with subtleties is so full of hubris that their opinion is not worthy of the cost of reading it.

shokhead
02-08-2005, 06:25 AM
Only real test is in your hearing. Lab tests for the most part are of no use if you cant hear the difference and for me,never heard any difference. Having said that,if there were to be any difference,i think it would be in video cables much more then audio.

Monstrous Mike
02-08-2005, 10:16 AM
It looks like you want it to be known you take pride in being dupe-proof.
Nobody is dupe-proof and nobody is saying they are. The message is to be cautious when you are wandering down a path that appears to have no evidence of truthfulness other than peoples' testimonials. This applies to cables as well as all the products normally sold in the last 50 pages of popular magazines.




If you tried a new interconnect or other cable in sighted listening and thought it improved the sound of your system, why wouldn't you be content to just let it go at that?
There are lots of things that I let go. For example, I dip my hockey stick in the toilet before each game and I have pretty good success. I really don't care what anybody thinks about that. However, it is free and it is harmless. On the other hand, there are things that people do with no good reason other than they think it improves their lives but it is actually harmful to their health.

Getting to cables, if you are happy with spending wads of money then the only thing it is really affecting is your household budget.

Personally, when it comes to participating in activities that may affect my health or cause me to spend money uneccessarily, I take a little bit more of a critical, objective look at and don't "let it go" quite so easily.

And further, as you well know, there is a very large industry of people selling sugar pills, bottled water, penis enlargement systems, etc. that prey on the vanity of the consumer. The idea of the magic potion is really quite old and many of these shucksters realize people want that magic potion and are willing to suspend normal objective thinking to take that chance. It's really a societal issue that goes beyond audio cables.

Oh yeah, and the final note is that the person seeking out the potion may even think every other product is crap except the one he is using or persuing.

I see you read my post on the psychology of choosing beliefs. It looked your answer was designed to fit your belief. Read the definition for Post-decisional Dissonance again.

shokhead
02-08-2005, 11:00 AM
Nobody is dupe-proof and nobody is saying they are. The message is to be cautious when you are wandering down a path that appears to have no evidence of truthfulness other than peoples' testimonials. This applies to cables as well as all the products normally sold in the last 50 pages of popular magazines.




There are lots of things that I let go. For example, I dip my hockey stick in the toilet before each game and I have pretty good success. I really don't care what anybody thinks about that. However, it is free and it is harmless. On the other hand, there are things that people do with no good reason other than they think it improves their lives but it is actually harmful to their health.

Getting to cables, if you are happy with spending wads of money then the only thing it is really affecting is your household budget.

Personally, when it comes to participating in activities that may affect my health or cause me to spend money uneccessarily, I take a little bit more of a critical, objective look at and don't "let it go" quite so easily.

And further, as you well know, there is a very large industry of people selling sugar pills, bottled water, penis enlargement systems, etc. that prey on the vanity of the consumer. The idea of the magic potion is really quite old and many of these shucksters realize people want that magic potion and are willing to suspend normal objective thinking to take that chance. It's really a societal issue that goes beyond audio cables.

Oh yeah, and the final note is that the person seeking out the potion may even think every other product is crap except the one he is using or persuing.

I see you read my post on the psychology of choosing beliefs. It looked your answer was designed to fit your belief. Read the definition for Post-decisional Dissonance again.

Not that i need any but a friend of mine would like to know more about the penis enlargement systems. Sounds interesting,er for my friend of course.

RobotCzar
02-08-2005, 11:26 AM
I know there is a conflict between what large numbers of people report they hear and the results of a small number of listening test. I also know the quality of these experiments has been questioned here on AR. I am not comfortable extrapolating the results of these tests, and concluding that all wires sound the same and always will. If you see my position as illogical, please explain why. In my opinion, the correct view is the evidence is inconclusive. .

Your postition is illogical because there is NO evidence people can hear, say, cable differences. What evidence that does exist, even if it is not perfect, clearly supports the idea that people can't hear differences in cables. I have taken a lot of time to explain that uncontrolled reports are not evidence. So, assuming a position that we have "inconclusive" evidence is not logical. I have also taken pains to explain that electric theory and evdience of the limits of human hearing ALSO indicate that people cannot distinguish cables (as used in home audio systems).


In looking at possible reasons for the conflict, I don't see why anything should be off limits. However, perhaps "test the test" is not the best way to say that I thought blinded testing in audio should be examined. It might be better to ask if blinded testing for audible differences in equipment, as it has been practiced, does what it is supposed to do. This could be a broader and more interesting subject. Obviously, it is supposed to be an unbiased way of determining what the listener hears. But there could be more. Is it supposed to change the behavior of test subjects, for example, or do listeners who fail to verify their sighted listening claims in blinded tests go back to the same claims when they return to sighted listening?

I hadn't heard about the CD/tape experiment. I don't see anything wrong with that kind of test if it's done right, although it would have been better double blind. However, it is not a "test of the test," but a test of the listener's ability to tell the difference between CD and tape recordings. If the subjects were from the general population, and took the test cold, I'm not surprised they couldn't tell the difference. I would be surprised if results were negative for listeners with some practice who claimed they could hear a difference before being tested.

Thank you for a thorough reply. I appreciate your taking the time to talk.

The fact that you don't understand why you can't test the test merely indicates a incomplete understanding of scientific method and logic. Of course blinding does what it is supposed to do. It is supposed to remove conscious and unconscious bias. One cannot be biased if one doesn't know which component (or cable) is which. Why should one have to know in order to tell a difference? Your questioning blind testing is merely questioning the logical conclusion I have just mentioned. Where is flaw in the logic?

I am sorry you can't pretest the test, but that is the case. You use a test to see if people can tell a difference, you don't simply assume that can and then test. Sorry if that doesn't make sense to you. Do not be offended if I say the problem is your understanding, not the test. I recommend you find out more.

mystic
02-08-2005, 09:21 PM
MAny years ago I DID pick up a hi glitz cable for a pretty penny. I was impressed and inviterd my neighbor/friend, also a hi fi buff, in for a listen.

Can you imagine? The fool could not hear the obvious glaring improvements I heard!

We discussed the matter and came up with a simple test. Since he already had a key to my place (we fed each other's cats and took in the mail when we were away) and we worked different shifts, he proposed I keep a notepad and note, every day what speaker cable I was listening to. His part of thge bargain was to slip in when I wasn't home and switch the cables (or not) and note in HIS notebook what cable was hooked up.

After three weeks we compared notes. Guess what? almost exactly 50/50, or what I precieved to be hearing had no relevance to which cable was in use.

So, in answer to your question, because I admit that I am only human and subject to my attitudes, beliefs and expectations. Any sighted listening is subject to these. This simple, free, no cost, no pressure test proved that quite easily.

Anyone who claims to be immune to their attitudes, beliefs and expectations when dealing with subtleties is so full of hubris that their opinion is not worthy of the cost of reading it.

Your experiment wasn't double-blind,so bias was possible and you weren't able to do rapid switching between the two wires, so a lot depended on your memory. Also, your friend's opinion may have affected you. My guess is you let him talk you out of hearing an improvement. Unfortunely, because he altered your attitudes, beliefs, and expectations, you will never again be able to enjoy that little bit of improvement a change in wires might bring. Tell that guy to feed his own cats from now on. If it's any consolation, you may save some money.

.

mystic
02-08-2005, 09:47 PM
Nobody is dupe-proof and nobody is saying they are. The message is to be cautious when you are wandering down a path that appears to have no evidence of truthfulness other than peoples' testimonials. This applies to cables as well as all the products normally sold in the last 50 pages of popular magazines.




There are lots of things that I let go. For example, I dip my hockey stick in the toilet before each game and I have pretty good success. I really don't care what anybody thinks about that. However, it is free and it is harmless. On the other hand, there are things that people do with no good reason other than they think it improves their lives but it is actually harmful to their health.

Getting to cables, if you are happy with spending wads of money then the only thing it is really affecting is your household budget.

Personally, when it comes to participating in activities that may affect my health or cause me to spend money uneccessarily, I take a little bit more of a critical, objective look at and don't "let it go" quite so easily.

And further, as you well know, there is a very large industry of people selling sugar pills, bottled water, penis enlargement systems, etc. that prey on the vanity of the consumer. The idea of the magic potion is really quite old and many of these shucksters realize people want that magic potion and are willing to suspend normal objective thinking to take that chance. It's really a societal issue that goes beyond audio cables.

Oh yeah, and the final note is that the person seeking out the potion may even think every other product is crap except the one he is using or persuing.

I see you read my post on the psychology of choosing beliefs. It looked your answer was designed to fit your belief. Read the definition for Post-decisional Dissonance again.

I'm lost. Which of my answers are you talking about?

Just speaking hypothetically, suppose someone ordered one of those penis enlargement systems. Would it come in a plain brown wrapper? Could someone get their money back if it didn't work?

mystic
02-08-2005, 10:36 PM
Your postition is illogical because there is NO evidence people can hear, say, cable differences. What evidence that does exist, even if it is not perfect, clearly supports the idea that people can't hear differences in cables. I have taken a lot of time to explain that uncontrolled reports are not evidence. So, assuming a position that we have "inconclusive" evidence is not logical. I have also taken pains to explain that electric theory and evdience of the limits of human hearing ALSO indicate that people cannot distinguish cables (as used in home audio systems).



The fact that you don't understand why you can't test the test merely indicates a incomplete understanding of scientific method and logic. Of course blinding does what it is supposed to do. It is supposed to remove conscious and unconscious bias. One cannot be biased if one doesn't know which component (or cable) is which. Why should one have to know in order to tell a difference? Your questioning blind testing is merely questioning the logical conclusion I have just mentioned. Where is flaw in the logic?

I am sorry you can't pretest the test, but that is the case. You use a test to see if people can tell a difference, you don't simply assume that can and then test. Sorry if that doesn't make sense to you. Do not be offended if I say the problem is your understanding, not the test. I recommend you find out more.

Yes, I would like to find out more. I am interested in evaluating scientific listening studies on cable differences. Despite all the talk at AR about the blinded testing that has been done on cables, I can't find a complete study on line. I find results of tests, but you can't evaluate a result. A scientific study should provide a complete methodological description and present all the information and data needed for an evaluation. The TagMclaren study on two interconnects which used to be online was better documented than anything else I have seen so far. Do you know of others?

markw
02-09-2005, 03:59 AM
Your experiment wasn't double-blind,so bias was possible and you weren't able to do rapid switching between the two wires, so a lot depended on your memory. Also, your friend's opinion may have affected you. My guess is you let him talk you out of hearing an improvement. Unfortunely, because he altered your attitudes, beliefs, and expectations, you will never again be able to enjoy that little bit of improvement a change in wires might bring. Tell that guy to feed his own cats from now on. If it's any consolation, you may save some money..There's that river in China again. ...and you wonder why cable afficionadios are looked upon with amusement ?

Oh well, if you think your rebuttal looks convincing to any and all that are sitting on the fence reading this, then enjoy your self serving bubble of mysticism. That balloon has been pricked.

Actually, it answers virtually all of the major objections to the traditional scientific testing. I was able to listen with no pressure, on equipment I was familiar with, to music I was familiar with and in an environment I was comfortable in. And, most importantly, no pressure of time constraints in which to arrive at a forced decision.

...just simply listen to whatever music I choose in a leisurly environment and let my ears (and only my ears) tell me what's what.

All you really proved is simply that that you will never be satisfied unless you know which item is being tested at the moment.

Still, it's more of a test than you have ever tried...or ever will. I was sure enough of myself to put my money where my mouth was. My guess is that's more than I can say about you.

musicoverall
02-09-2005, 05:06 AM
There's that river in China again. ...and you wonder why cable afficionadios are looked upon with amusement ?.

Amusing anecdotes aside, Mystic has a point regarding your test methodology. He's looking to test the test, as he's pointed out. Your test wouldn't be considered scientific, correct? Too many variables left unattended such as what Mystic mentioned.

On the other hand, it should be sufficient to satisfy you as the test taker (sorry, I have trouble using the term "testee") :) But let me ask... how many cables did you test? Two? Is it then possible that those two cables sound identical and that's all you "proved"? How is it then that you are able to extrapolate your test results to ALL cables and ALL people in ALL systems? I mean, if you want to view us with amusement, that's ok with me. But unless I'm missing a point or two of yours, I'm sorry but I'm chuckling myself! I think I see what Mystic is getting at. Sounds like that river flows in both directions! :D

E-Stat
02-09-2005, 02:14 PM
There's that river in China again...
FYI, "de" Nile is found in the land of the Pharaohs and the fertile crescent, Eqypt.

rw

markw
02-09-2005, 02:38 PM
FYI, "de" Nile is found in the land of the Pharaohs and the fertile crescent, Eqypt.

rwIn the words of the immortal Homer Simpson, Doh! ;)

markw
02-09-2005, 02:41 PM
Amusing anecdotes aside, Mystic has a point regarding your test methodology. He's looking to test the test, as he's pointed out. Your test wouldn't be considered scientific, correct? Too many variables left unattended such as what Mystic mentioned.

On the other hand, it should be sufficient to satisfy you as the test taker (sorry, I have trouble using the term "testee") :) But let me ask... how many cables did you test? Two? Is it then possible that those two cables sound identical and that's all you "proved"? How is it then that you are able to extrapolate your test results to ALL cables and ALL people in ALL systems? I mean, if you want to view us with amusement, that's ok with me. But unless I'm missing a point or two of yours, I'm sorry but I'm chuckling myself! I think I see what Mystic is getting at. Sounds like that river flows in both directions! :D... is to see if he can even identify them with accuracy under these oversimplified conditions. Should be a snap, right? What's there to prevent one's ears from discerning between the two cables except one's willingness to try? Excuses, excuses and more excuses...

And, I don't extrapolate this to "all" cables. I readily acknowledge that cables and interconnects can "sound" different but it's not in the technobabble, it's in scientific facts, and particularly in light of the tremendous disparity in cable pricing, and mostdecent tech doesn't cost a fortune.

I can't think of any other commodity where an item can be purchased for a few dollars and an item of similar functionality can cost upwards of 10, 100, 1000, and, in some cases I'm pretty sure in multiples of the tens of thousands. ... and where the debate rages over the actual differences where the rubber meets the road. If the differences warranted the price increases, do you thnk we would be wasting time going through this? I dount anyone will question the differences between a Hyundai and a Ferrari, although they will both get you to the store in pretty much equal time.

True, you may WANT the Rolex and that's all well and good, but please don't tell others that you bought it because it keeps better time than the Timex.

Obviously, there is more involved than the simple task of keeping time. ...likewise, this may well be an issue with cables and interconnects.

One other thing I've learned over the years is that when one introduces a new player into the game, one tends to listen more critically than before. And, in such case, one may have never noticed those "new, wonderful" sounds before.

But, now that one has become accustomed to listening for those "new, wonderful" sounds with the new toy, they may be plesantly surprised that when replacing the original item, they may well find they were there all along!

One just never bothered to listen for them before.

Yes, I WOULD suggest my simple* test for anyone who is "blown away" with their new cables. It's a nice way to actually see (or hear, to be more to the point) what one has bought.

*simple, as long as one has friends they can trust and a willingness to look honestly and deeply into the mirror.

musicoverall
02-09-2005, 05:57 PM
[QUOTE=markw
I readily acknowledge that cables and interconnects can "sound" different .[/QUOTE]

Well, rat farts! You're no fun! :)

I was going to try your test but with my speaker cable vs a friends MIT whatzis for starters, mostly because they sound decidedly different. Whereas mine are transparent (whatever that means) his impart a definite sound. "Musical and non-fatiguing", he says. "Dull and rolled off", says I.

Now... my take on this phenomenon is that the MIT's are designed to take the glare off digital recordings i.e they are purposefully colored. So that's really not fair but, gosh awmighty, I was ready to show the world that speaker wire can and does sound different. So I need another suggestion for a comparison test. Five weeks from this saturday, I'll have the opportunity to start the test which can go unimpeded for 13 whole days! Perfect, since I can't always sit and listen to music every day... work and children interfere. What's your suggestion? I've sold my other cables already.

Also, as far as the improvement being warranted by the price, I acknowledge that the differences between a $500 cable and a $250 one aren't 100%. But for the person who wants to gain a 2% improvement for a 200% outlay - hey, if getting closer to the music is his ultimate goal, more power to him... uh, me! Furthermore, if someone could wave a magic wand and consistently shave 2 strokes off my golf game, I'd pay dearly. 2 strokes would be about the same improvement percentage. I've even tried Bedini Clarifying my irons! I still stink! Golf... Bah!

markw
02-09-2005, 06:28 PM
... let's get the misquoting straight, OK? When people are accused of saying "all cables sound alike", what's meant, but rarely acknowledged by those hitting people over the head with that quote, is that several several caveats apply.

1) Similar construction. Some coax has better shielding. Some has none. Obviously, there may be some RFI.

2) Similar gauge and length. Most home users work in lengths of around 10' or less (ignote HT for now). A long length of a veeeerrrry thin cable may well sound difference than a short length of thicker cable.

3) And, like that MIT, some cables CAN be engineered to impart a distinct sound which, to me, seems like the antithesis of what's desirable but then, again, what do I know? In any case, what do a few resistors, condensers and inductots cost?

Keeping this in mine. knock yerself out. ;) At least you'll really know what yer paying for.

mystic
02-09-2005, 07:03 PM
... is to see if he can even identify them with accuracy under these oversimplified conditions. Should be a snap, right? What's there to prevent one's ears from discerning between the two cables except one's willingness to try? Excuses, excuses and more excuses...

And, I don't extrapolate this to "all" cables. I readily acknowledge that cables and interconnects can "sound" different but it's not in the technobabble, it's in scientific facts, and particularly in light of the tremendous disparity in cable pricing, and mostdecent tech doesn't cost a fortune.

I can't think of any other commodity where an item can be purchased for a few dollars and an item of similar functionality can cost upwards of 10, 100, 1000, and, in some cases I'm pretty sure in multiples of the tens of thousands. ... and where the debate rages over the actual differences where the rubber meets the road. If the differences warranted the price increases, do you thnk we would be wasting time going through this? I dount anyone will question the differences between a Hyundai and a Ferrari, although they will both get you to the store in pretty much equal time.

True, you may WANT the Rolex and that's all well and good, but please don't tell others that you bought it because it keeps better time than the Timex.

Obviously, there is more involved than the simple task of keeping time. ...likewise, this may well be an issue with cables and interconnects.

One other thing I've learned over the years is that when one introduces a new player into the game, one tends to listen more critically than before. And, in such case, one may have never noticed those "new, wonderful" sounds before.

But, now that one has become accustomed to listening for those "new, wonderful" sounds with the new toy, they may be plesantly surprised that when replacing the original item, they may well find they were there all along!

One just never bothered to listen for them before.

Yes, I WOULD suggest my simple* test for anyone who is "blown away" with their new cables. It's a nice way to actually see (or hear, to be more to the point) what one has bought.

*simple, as long as one has friends they can trust and a willingness to look honestly and deeply into the mirror.
[QUOTE=markw
One other thing I've learned over the years is that when one introduces a new player into the game, one tends to listen more critically than before. And, in such case, one may have never noticed those "new, wonderful" sounds before.

But, now that one has become accustomed to listening for those "new, wonderful" sounds with the new toy, they may be plesantly surprised that when replacing the original item, they may well find they were there all along!

One just never bothered to listen for them before.
[/QUOTE]


What you are saying seems reasonable, and may work that way for you, but I have found it usually works the other way for me. I hope for an improvement from the new component, but am underwhelmed by what I hear if I hear any difference at all. For me, the best indicator of a worthwhile improvement is removing the new item after several weeks of listening, and finding out whether I miss it and want it back in the system.

RobotCzar
02-14-2005, 11:31 AM
[QUOTE=mystic] I can't find a complete study on line. I find results of tests, but you can't evaluate a result. A scientific study should provide a complete methodological description and present all the information and data needed for an evaluation. The TagMclaren study on two interconnects which used to be online was better documented than anything else I have seen so far. Do you know of others?[/QUOTE

You are very unlikely to find a test that meets your requirements. We only have less rigorous tests done by non-scientists (that I have heard about or seen).

I think you should consider the fact that no real scientist or peer-reviewed journal considers this an issue worth investigating. The silence is often rather stunning to new audiophiles. I suggest the reason for this lack of formal studies is that real scientists do not consider the topic interesting. In other words, they feel they already know the answer and a study would be a waste of time. (Recall that I have mentioned that theory and facts known about the limits of human perception indicated that people should not be able to hear differences in typical home audio cables.) Simply put, scientists think this is a moot issue (actually, they proably think it is dumb).

Now, scientists could be motivated to do such studies very easily---if someone gave them some money to do them. You should wonder why super-cable makers don't hire scientists to do such formal studies. After all, they could demostrate how much "better" their cables are, instead of writing "white papers" using techobable to "show" that their stuff works. Of course, no cable company (or amp company) has done this. I think I have a pretty good idea why. Do you?

shokhead
02-14-2005, 11:58 AM
Maybe the company's that make the cable knows the truth from there research but once they saw how little or no difference there was,forgot to tell us. :eek:

jneutron
02-14-2005, 12:09 PM
I think you should consider the fact that no real scientist or peer-reviewed journal considers this an issue worth investigating. The silence is often rather stunning to new audiophiles. I suggest the reason for this lack of formal studies is that real scientists do not consider the topic interesting.
From my recent experience....you would be incorrect in your suggestion.

Real scientists and researchers consider anyone who believes speaker cables can make a difference to be zealots, idiots, a-holes, and numbskulls...(z,i,a,ns)

So far, the majority of the ones I've contacted have dealt with me initially as being a member of the "zians" society. It takes a bit of back and forth, for them to realize I'm not a crank...

Do you know what the primary reason for their attitude??? Read any diatribe by JR..several of them pointed to his crap, saying..you believe this garbage??

It gets real tiring real fast, explaining a real scientifically based study to a real scientist or researcher, as a defense mechanism against being branded as residing within the same camp as JR..talk about your uphill battle..just getting them to listen is damn near impossible.


In other words, they feel they already know the answer and a study would be a waste of time. (Recall that I have mentioned that theory and facts known about the limits of human perception indicated that people should not be able to hear differences in typical home audio cables.) Simply put, scientists think this is a moot issue (actually, they proably think it is dumb).

Actually, they still do not understand how we localize..current models include a bandpass filter/rectifier/lowpass filter scenario. They also play with SAM and transposed SAM waveforms, but have not arrived to the point where they can develop a complete transfer function including ITD and IID variables.

Bottom line, they have not advanced to the point where they can model the development of a soundstage w/r to human hearing...so they do not know how to establish a real study.


Now, scientists could be motivated to do such studies very easily---if someone gave them some money to do them. You should wonder why super-cable makers don't hire scientists to do such formal studies. After all, they could demostrate how much "better" their cables are, instead of writing "white papers" using techobable to "show" that their stuff works. Of course, no cable company (or amp company) has done this.
Money would certainly motivate most. The cable makers do not because they are afraid the results will confirm the lack of difference touted by many...this is not to say there is no difference, just that the scientists have not progressed far enough to show such.

I was rather amazed at the current state of affairs in modelling human localization..not a very good one, IMHO, for the half century of work put into it..

Cheers, John

RobotCzar
02-17-2005, 11:47 AM
Actually, they still do not understand how we localize..current models include a bandpass filter/rectifier/lowpass filter scenario. They also play with SAM and transposed SAM waveforms, but have not arrived to the point where they can develop a complete transfer function including ITD and IID variables.

Bottom line, they have not advanced to the point where they can model the development of a soundstage w/r to human hearing...so they do not know how to establish a real study.I was rather amazed at the current state of affairs in modelling human localization..not a very good one, IMHO, for the half century of work put into it..

Cheers, John

I agree with what you say about scientific reactions, I am trying to sound reasonable about the silliness so as not to turn off newcommers with open, if not yet entirely rational, minds.

I also agree that localization effects are the real issue in audio fidelity. Recording theory and techniques affect soundstage. Speaker response, placement, and room effects also affect soundstage and localization. To my ears, reality in 3D is THE factor that separates OK recordings from state of the art. Electronics, however, are not establshed as affecting sound stage, and I don't hear any real differences, like I do for the above factors.

Now, having said that let me be clear that one of the problems of current audio systems is the use of two channels to attempt to recreate (actually simulate would be a better word) audio 3D. That is a major problem, but I do not expect commercial multichannel audio to solve the "problem". Fact is, it has already been solved with ambisonics. Ambisonics calls into question your claim that scientists have not be able to specify a transfer function. They have, it just hasn't been implemented in the commercial market.

I suppose that you are too focused on electronics as that is your area of expertise. The issue has to do with acoustics and psychoacoustics, not electronic transfer functions. The basic issue is about acoustic transfer functions, electroncs is for encoding and amplification and are not an issue when distortion is low enough. Certainly, it is not clear that cable differences affect soundstage as that perception is due primarily do differences between the (usually 2) channels. If the same cable is used for all channels, then there can be little differences among the channels. For electronics in general, you should be concerned only with differences among channels as those are the only source of localization affects (if distortion is low enough).

Audio 3D simply isn't a quesiton of electronics. And, ambisonics has demonstrated the theoretical capability of reproducing a 3D sound field exactly (actually approaching exactly in the real world), which is exactly the transfer function we seek. Too bad audiophiles don't have the option to use ambisonics. It is also too bad that so-called audiophile don't attend to the real issues. The last two statements are probably related.

jneutron
02-23-2005, 07:18 AM
Fact is, it has already been solved with ambisonics. Ambisonics calls into question your claim that scientists have not be able to specify a transfer function. They have, it just hasn't been implemented in the commercial market.

Hi RC..

Took a look at the ambisonics theory..interesting, but there appears to be a flaw..that would certainly explain the lack of embracing the technology has endured.

I explain....They use a set of mikes to ascertain the direction of the sound energy impinging on it in 3 dimensions...so, they can exactly duplicate the field at a point in space. Unfortunately, it will duplicate only that in a practical manner.. To duplicate the soundfield EXACTLY, requires time reversed technology, of the type found in this link:

http://focus.aps.org/story/v14/st24

If you examine this, you see that it is possible to focus the waves (sound, radio..same thing..) at a point in space..this article shows how they time reverse the signals. This is comparable to using a lens to focus light at a point, duplicating in essence, a point source of light...

But, application of this to acoustics poses a different problem..I can easily show how time reversed app will generate a virtual acoustic point source in space...which then expands EXACTLY as if the source were there...unfortunately, prior to the soundfield getting to that point, it has to go by the listener (assuming 360<sup>O</sup>) of transducers. Meaning, ya can't get theyah from heyah...

They are approaching it incorrectly..

I am, however, thoroughly impressed with their writeup on the site...they are very, very, good at understanding the nature of localization..I fear they just got lost in the equations, and lost the sense of "feeling" or understanding..Look at this verbage....incredibly good..



In what ways is G-format actually superior to conventional 5.1 surround? To answer that question we need to consider briefly the shortcomings of conventional approaches. Conventional surround (and stereo!) recordings localize sound sources simply by means of level. To place something mid-way between front and rear left, for example, you simply apply equal levels to these two loudspeakers. This is not very satisfactory, however, for several reasons. Human hearing relies on different combinations of level, phase and arrival time -- as well as other factors -- to localize sound sources, and not solely on level. Loudspeakers in a conventional stereo pair are generally placed 60 degrees apart with respect to the listener. In this configuration, the ears can hear sound coming from both speakers and differences in level are interpreted as phase differences and provide localization information. This effect begins to fail as the speakers are moved further apart, and by the time you get to a 90 degree front stage -- as was found in quad setups and is still recommended in some quarters today -- a significant "hole in the middle" has developed (it's one reason for the center front channel in 5.1).
Level-only localization is poor at best in the rear, and virtually nonexistent at the sides. As a result, conventional surround tends to suffer from poor inter-speaker imaging. Sounds are sucked into the speakers and it is hard to get them to appear from anywhere else -- as a result, some engineers and producers have taken to deliberately placing sounds only in the loudspeakers: a simple and effective way out, but one that is rather limiting in creative terms. Another problem is the fact that as only level is involved, moving about within the listening environment changes the positions of sounds in the replayed image. Move to the left and you hear more of the left speakers, so the balance appears to move to the left. Move to the rear and the image moves backwards. This is not satisfactory: not only is the image unstable, it is only "right" in a very small spot in the center of the array -- the "sweet spot".


I suppose that you are too focused on electronics as that is your area of expertise. The issue has to do with acoustics and psychoacoustics, not electronic transfer functions. The basic issue is about acoustic transfer functions, electroncs is for encoding and amplification and are not an issue when distortion is low enough.
You are very incorrect....you have assumed that I CAN focus....silly you....:-)

When I say transfer function, I mean the function to be applied to the music signal left and right, to force the signal to image at a specific angular distance off axis, and at a specific depth from the listener..as such, it is an acoustic to electronic to acoustic transfer function, somewhat more complex than a simple pan pot...


It is also too bad that so-called audiophile don't attend to the real issues.

Many are told exactly what to attend to..by guru's..complete with garbage pseudo-science and made up crap...the audiophiles have no-one else to listen to, so they listen to the only voice there...

Cheers, John

RobotCzar
02-24-2005, 08:04 AM
Of interest is a letter from Professor Stanley Lip****z in issue 24 of The Audio Critic:

"There is a common misunderstanding of sound immaging, perpetuated in Daniel Sweeney's article "Twice Shy: On Reencountering Multichannel Music Formats" in Issue No. 23, which I would like to address. Sweeny bemoans the presence of "interaural crosstalk" in surround sound systems in general and Ambisonics in particular, as if there is something inherently wroing about each ear hearing all the loudspeakers. This fallacy can be traced right back to a common belief that one of the defects of stereo reproduction is each ear hears both loudspeakers, and that the ideal would be that the left channel signal be heard only by the left ear. Such a situation would represent binaural reproduction and would require a binaural ("dummy head") recording as the source. But Sweeney is not discussing binarual sound, and both stereo and Ambisonics are predicated o the existence of this crosstalk.

Ambisonics goes further than stereo in that what it does (to the first order) is to sample the acoustic field in such a way that the combination of the signals from all the loudspeakers in the array produces, in the region of space around the center of the array, a reconstruction of the original acoustic wave field (both traveling and standing- wave components). If a listener puts his or her head in this sound field, then, because the wave fronts are similar to the original, the perception of directionality and space should correspond to the original too. It is a "wave front reconstruction" scheme in the small. The ear signals (crosstalk and all) will be correct if reconstructed wave fronts are correct. This is just like natural hearing. Increasing number of loudspeakers in Ambisonics (each fed its correctly decoded signal) increases the accuracy of the reconstruction and ther region over which it holds up. The interaural arrival time differencesw also correspond to natural hearing in Ambisonics.

All these aspects are correctly captured to the first order by Ambisonics...."

There are a couple of points I want to make about Lip****z's comments. First, note that "interaural crosstalk" is another "made up" issue in the high end. Note also that Bob Carver based a product line on it, but that does mean he is right. Therefore, what designers and manufacturers say and do is not some kind of proof of validity.

Second, note that he uses the phase "to the first order" which seems to be your sticking point (it is not exact). However, let's face two facts: we are not even getting first order spatial reproduction from classic stereo systems (or 5.1 multichannel) AND we are never going to get perfection. Perfection may not be required, as our sensory does not have infinite resolution. Just as we can't hear very small amounts of distortion, we may not be able to audio-locate beyond first order reproduction.

In any case, high end audio guys are twiddling their capacitors in search of better "resolution" when their whole set up (classic stereo) is an order of magnitude away from anything acceptable in regard to spatial reproduction. They keep thinking that if they pay mor money for electronics they will improve something that is ingrained in the recording and playback systems. This also helps us understand vinyl nuts because LPs impart an additional (and false) sense of space on playback. They may be right to the point that they are getting a "better" (if inaccurate) spatial illusion.

jneutron
02-24-2005, 09:32 AM
There are a couple of points I want to make about Lip****z's comments. First, note that "interaural crosstalk" is another "made up" issue in the high end. Note also that Bob Carver based a product line on it, but that does mean he is right. Therefore, what designers and manufacturers say and do is not some kind of proof of validity.

Second, note that he uses the phase "to the first order" which seems to be your sticking point (it is not exact). However, let's face two facts: we are not even getting first order spatial reproduction from classic stereo systems (or 5.1 multichannel) AND we are never going to get perfection. Perfection may not be required, as our sensory does not have infinite resolution. Just as we can't hear very small amounts of distortion, we may not be able to audio-locate beyond first order reproduction.
Inter-aural crosstalk is a reality...it happens..I have been referring to it's effect as "sidebands". A true mono signal will visualize as a single point source, while the mind ignores the crosstalk...hence, to the first order, I agree in that the crosstalk can be ignored.

My sticking point is not the lack of exactness past "to the first order". My point is, the further the image gets from the array of drivers, the less the soundfield correlates to the correct waveform reconstruction..as well, smaller wavelengths have another issue..driver spacing affects the useability of phased array technology, hence will also provide ambisonic technology limitations..

It would be better to fully understand how the Bose system uses time and location based ITD divergence to produce it's huge soundstage image. That would certainly help the ambisonics, and is definitely applicable to binaural reproduction..but, I have seen nothing presented at the level of computational power required to do so..I do not even know if the Bose people understand how it does what it does..

They may be right to the point that they are getting a "better" (if inaccurate) spatial illusion.
Yes, we certainly agree on quite a bit...this included.

Cheers, John

Toga
02-28-2005, 09:48 AM
Hiya RobotCzar!

You dismiss binaural recordings? Have you heard good ones? Discussions I've read point out the primary limitations of headphone listening as being in the suspension of disbelief only as long as you DON'T TURN YOUR HEAD. Bob Carver has come up with some doozies in his day, but he was right on the money with the Sonic Hologram Generator. The trouble with it was, it was built with ho-hum components available in the early eighties, and made too many one-size-fits-all assumptions. On recordings made with a coincident pair of microphones in a live acoustical space, the imaging is nothing short of breath taking. Room sounds, although detracting from the literal performance, restore the suspension of disbelief because one is not transported from aural effects one is localized within. Try sitting in an anechoic chamber. It will drive you nuts very quickly.

I didn't see anything mentioned in the Ambisonics blurb about Dynamic Comb Filtering (and OTHER factors?). This is the variable EQ curve generated by the shape of the head, positioning of the ears, and the outer ear shape itself, allowing placement of sounds that are moving from the front, overhead, and behind the head, because of the convoluting transfer function in real time. No gross level differences, no phase or time arrival cues, and yet you can "HEAR" in more than just a horizontal plane of a sound field. This research was being done at MIT and KEF starting in the '70s.

Simply because we are only gradually reaching for an understanding of ear/brain function is not sufficient justification for junk science to fill the void. Much like classical understanding of field theory being all wrong, and TDS measuring devices being inadequate for transmission line analysis for large signal effects at AUDIO frequencies, the trouble with being at the forefront of any field is that people ridicule you whether you are right or not.

I wish a Chinese Philosopher had asked a question: If one can taste the presence of a grain of salt on the tongue or not, could he also taste that same grain of salt added to the OCEAN?

jneutron
02-28-2005, 09:54 AM
Much like classical understanding of field theory being all wrong, and TDS measuring devices being inadequate for transmission line analysis for large signal effects at AUDIO frequencies, the trouble with being at the forefront of any field is that people ridicule you whether you are right or not.
Would you please elaborate on those?

Several of my aquaintences at work would be very interested in knowing that they are all wrong..

Cheers, John

RobotCzar
02-28-2005, 01:57 PM
Hiya RobotCzar!

You dismiss binaural recordings? Have you heard good ones? Discussions I've read point out the primary limitations of headphone listening as being in the suspension of disbelief only as long as you DON'T TURN YOUR HEAD. Bob Carver has come up with some doozies in his day, but he was right on the money with the Sonic Hologram Generator. The trouble with it was, it was built with ho-hum components available in the early eighties, and made too many one-size-fits-all assumptions. On recordings made with a coincident pair of microphones in a live acoustical space, the imaging is nothing short of breath taking. Room sounds, although detracting from the literal performance, restore the suspension of disbelief because one is not transported from aural effects one is localized within. Try sitting in an anechoic chamber. It will drive you nuts very quickly.

I didn't see anything mentioned in the Ambisonics blurb about Dynamic Comb Filtering (and OTHER factors?). This is the variable EQ curve generated by the shape of the head, positioning of the ears, and the outer ear shape itself, allowing placement of sounds that are moving from the front, overhead, and behind the head, because of the convoluting transfer function in real time. No gross level differences, no phase or time arrival cues, and yet you can "HEAR" in more than just a horizontal plane of a sound field. This research was being done at MIT and KEF starting in the '70s.

Simply because we are only gradually reaching for an understanding of ear/brain function is not sufficient justification for junk science to fill the void. Much like classical understanding of field theory being all wrong, and TDS measuring devices being inadequate for transmission line analysis for large signal effects at AUDIO frequencies, the trouble with being at the forefront of any field is that people ridicule you whether you are right or not.

I wish a Chinese Philosopher had asked a question: If one can taste the presence of a grain of salt on the tongue or not, could he also taste that same grain of salt added to the OCEAN?

Let's consider Toga's comments from a crtiical thinking point of view.

1, At no point did I (or the writer I was quoting) dismiss binaural recordings. Simply read what is written in the post, Lip****z says that playback without interaural crosstalk is binaural. Binaural recodings can be quite realistic simply because listening room acoustics are eliminated AND recording room acoustics are nearly perfectly perserved. Unfortunately, the not-moving-your-head problem turns out to be rather serious. We get a lot of location cues by moving our head about to gather more data by changing the perspective of our ears in regard to the audio source. You can't do that with headphones and a binaural recording. The critical thinking point is that Toga simply reacted to what he wanted to hear or thought he heard instead of what was said by the writer. The writer's point is that "interaural crosstalk" from speaker arrays is not harmful.

2. He claims Carver was right, but offers no evidence or even and argument as to why he is right. The author I quoted is a distinguished professor of electronics used for audio reproduction, I know that doesn't match the celeb status of Bob Carver, but the truth is, Bob Carver never offered an explanation as to why interaural crosstalk is bad. He simply assumed it is. Sorry--don't buy it unless you back it up with some evidence or at least a logical argument. I'm not taking Bob Carver's word on it (though I might take Lip****z's word on it).

3. "it was built with ho-hum components", here again, Toga leaves the realm of critical thinking. Do ho-hum components lead to ho-hum performance? Seems logical based on good ole' common sense, but it is based on several fallacies. We can simply measure performance and see that many factor affect performance other than ho-hum components and that most components do the job well enough ho-hum or not--electrical performance can be calculated, including the expected performance range. The belief that "quality" components always result in audible differences is a sure sign of highenditis.

4. References to "junk science" is merely name calling. Where in Toga's statement's is evidence presented or a logical argument made? He does offer up a technobabble example of the "failure" of junk science in the past. "Much like classical understanding of field theory being all wrong." This statement marks Toga as a scientific neophyte, in no way is classical field theory "all wrong", it has served us well for a century, such theories are viewed as "incomplete" in light of new information. The equations that Maxwell used to establish electromagnetic theory are perfectly correct in our everyday experience and only break down under very extreme conditions that we on Earth never encounter.

5. If one could (via ambisonics or binarual) reproduce the original sound field (or a reasonable facsimile) then comb filtering is a moot point. No combfiltering occured within the area of "reasonable sound field reproduction" (by definition) AND the comb filtering due to your ears would be the same as for the actual live event that was recorded. When it comes to whether comb filtering is an issue with Ambisonics, I'll go with Lip****z's opinion over Toga's.

6. "the trouble with being at the forefront of any field is that people ridicule you whether you are right or not. " Assuming for a moment that it is not Toga that is at the forefront of the field, we come to a major point of science. People deserve "ridicule" if they cannot properly support their claims via standard scientific method. Most of us have no way a knowing if the fool at the forefont is right or wrong, but scientific method is specifically designed to weed out the pretenders. I think I'll be sticking with scientific method over pundits and crackpots at the forefont. If you have a major new scientific insight, go for your Nobel prize, but don't think sounding arrogant and dropping tehcnobabble is going to really cut it.

Toga
02-28-2005, 02:29 PM
Meester Neutron,

I did not make that claim myself...

Haha, I was paraphrasing YOU when you pointed out ideal field theory in textbooks differed in the real case, which I would agree with, but not at audio frequencies. I would also argue that -0.5dB @ 20kHz is a measurable difference, but not an audible one for most people, seeing as how they can't hear such frequencies reliably played back at ANY level.

It is my professional assertion that science as a body moves more slowly than its most daring practitioners. It was your claims about hollow core wiring that is at odds with common sense and industrial practice for high power low frequency transmission.

Toga
02-28-2005, 03:21 PM
Woah, woah, waoh!

I see I touched more than a nerve. Your post was amazingly defensive of propriety. Point by point:

1, At no point did I (or the writer I was quoting) dismiss binaural recordings. Simply read what is written in the post, Lip****z says that playback without interaural crosstalk is binaural. Binaural recodings can be quite realistic simply because listening room acoustics are eliminated AND recording room acoustics are nearly perfectly perserved. Unfortunately, the not-moving-your-head problem turns out to be rather serious. We get a lot of location cues by moving our head about to gather more data by changing the perspective of our ears in regard to the audio source. You can't do that with headphones and a binaural recording. The critical thinking point is that Toga simply reacted to what he wanted to hear or thought he heard instead of what was said by the writer. The writer's point is that "interaural crosstalk" from speaker arrays is not harmful.

1. Stereo has some pitfalls in its interceptive nature of capturing sound pressure and redistributing them again. As I stated in my post, certain recording pickup arrangements lend themselves to image recovery more than others. YOU appeared dismissive of interaural crosstalk by calling it a "made up issue". This is in direct relation to Binaural recording, since crosstalk would be detrimental in reproducing similar recordings with a regular 60 degree stereo pair of speakers.

2. He claims Carver was right, but offers no evidence or even and argument as to why he is right. The author I quoted is a distinguished professor of electronics used for audio reproduction, I know that doesn't match the celeb status of Bob Carver, but the truth is, Bob Carver never offered an explanation as to why interaural crosstalk is bad. He simply assumed it is. Sorry--don't buy it unless you back it up with some evidence or at least a logical argument. I'm not taking Bob Carver's word on it (though I might take Lip****z's word on it).

2. Carver published a manual in the form of a white paper regarding Sonic Holography, describing the recovery process, and the reasons why receiving wrong channel information interferes with the ear brain ambience recovery process. You may have heard of Polk's SDA, and other less famous realizations of interaural crosstalk cancellation. The imaging qualities of planars toed in "just so" have a natural channel to channel decrease of crosstalk as well. Critical thinking does not go hand in hand with pedigree fawning; "He's professor so and so".

3. "it was built with ho-hum components", here again, Toga leaves the realm of critical thinking. Do ho-hum components lead to ho-hum performance? Seems logical based on good ole' common sense, but it is based on several fallacies. We can simply measure performance and see that many factor affect performance other than ho-hum components and that most components do the job well enough ho-hum or not--electrical performance can be calculated, including the expected performance range. The belief that "quality" components always result in audible differences is a sure sign of highenditis.

3. The ho-hum components I was referring to are JRC 4558 and LM324 or TLO74 Op Amps. Their noise floor is not selected as in the NE5532D, so there are some signal insertion problems with the processing that could have been avoided using higher grade components. Modern offerings from Analog Devices or TI's Burr Brown line could make improvements that would raise the bar for the Sonic Hologram process. The processor was often inserted between a pre-amp and power amp, where its noise floor could be distracting during quiet passages. I'll let your brutish derision on this speak for itself...

4. References to "junk science" is merely name calling. Where in Toga's statement's is evidence presented or a logical argument made? He does offer up a technobabble example of the "failure" of junk science in the past. "Much like classical understanding of field theory being all wrong." This statement marks Toga as a scientific neophyte, in no way is classical field theory "all wrong", it has served us well for a century, such theories are viewed as "incomplete" in light of new information. The equations that Maxwell used to establish electromagnetic theory are perfectly correct in our everyday experience and only break down under very extreme conditions that we on Earth never encounter.

4. In this portion of your criticism, I was paraphrasing jneutron when he threw out textbook understanding of field theory. Talk about an unsupported thesis. TECHNOLOGY based on bad science rarely works as advertised. I admit I was mocking a little bit when I referred to those claims he made earlier, and did not properly point out the source of the claims.

5. If one could (via ambisonics or binarual) reproduce the original sound field (or a reasonable facsimile) then comb filtering is a moot point. No combfiltering occured within the area of "reasonable sound field reproduction" (by definition) AND the comb filtering due to your ears would be the same as for the actual live event that was recorded. When it comes to whether comb filtering is an issue with Ambisonics, I'll go with Lip****z's opinion over Toga's.

5. The comb filtering I was referring to, and that you may not be aware of, is from the multiple path lengths that sound follows over the human head, and its myriad diffraction patterns that vary based on angle of sound incidence. It is the one thing about Ambisonics I have seen in their early implementations I agreed with; a vertically oriented speaker pointing downward. At the time it was competing with other 4 quadrant sound schemes.

6. "the trouble with being at the forefront of any field is that people ridicule you whether you are right or not. " Assuming for a moment that it is not Toga that is at the forefront of the field, we come to a major point of science. People deserve "ridicule" if they cannot properly support their claims via standard scientific method. Most of us have no way a knowing if the fool at the forefont is right or wrong, but scientific method is specifically designed to weed out the pretenders. I think I'll be sticking with scientific method over pundits and crackpots at the forefont. If you have a major new scientific insight, go for your Nobel prize, but don't think sounding arrogant and dropping tehcnobabble is going to really cut it.

6. Again directed at the trailblazing efforts jneutron takes credit for in his work, I was commiserating that right or wrong, it is easy to get caught up in the POLITICS of science, that has less to do with the scientific method and more about ass covering and career management. Many good ideas have taken centuries to take hold against the status quo.

In short, I'm guilty of a lazy post. I switched my voice to several audience members without addressing them directly, and thus muddled the message I was trying to send. At no point was I referring to any of my own thoughts, ideas, or position in the industry. I simply disagreed with your excitement over Ambisonics having any sort of handle delivering multiple sources at a point in space when your speakers are not at the point the microphones were. Sadly people forget the point of audio is presenting a convincing ILLUSION rather than some actual clairaudience; the Binaural process comes closest in the horizontal plane, and Carver et. al. was onto something that you haven't seemed to take the time to investigate. Thanks for the opportunity to clear it up.

Your fierce approach to my post ambiguities make me wonder however... Critical thinking flaws? Can you read your post and spot some?

jneutron
03-02-2005, 09:19 AM
I was paraphrasing YOU when you pointed out ideal field theory in textbooks differed in the real case, which I would agree with, but not at audio frequencies. I would also argue that -0.5dB @ 20kHz is a measurable difference, but not an audible one for most people, seeing as how they can't hear such frequencies reliably played back at ANY level.

It is my professional assertion that science as a body moves more slowly than its most daring practitioners.
Hmmm..I'm trying to figure out exactly where you received the wrong impression..

I have not stated that classical field theory is incorrect. What I have stated, is that the TEXTBOOKS are incorrect if they assert the old exp model for low freq..but, some of them clearly point out the limitations of the model...you musta missed it..

What I have pointed out, is that to use the standard skin depth approximation, which is that exponential, TEM based isotropic propagation model for cases where there is significant current penetration, is incorrect.

In point of fact, it can easily be shown how incorrect that approximation is, by solving the Bessel equations for the conductor current transport...so, I actually USE classical E/M theory to prove that what you and others consider as "skin theory" is indeed, incorrect.

(I must confess, that I haven't figured out from your posts, if you even understand the subject at all..but, that is only from what you have said so far..)

The fastest way to show this is by excerpt.....from an AH article..here's the link..

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/howardjohnsonskineffect.php


This material appears in my new book, High-Speed Signal Propagation: More Black Magic. The book is available now through www.barnesandnoble.com . The first shipments should arrive from the printer in March.

The models in this book show how to derive both magnitude and phase for the skin effect resistance, and how to convert that into an overall model for signal propagation. The book provides several choices of models for the transition between the DC conduction (where the current fully penetrates the conductor) and skin-effect conduction (where the current is restricted to a shallow band just underneath the perimeter of the conductor).

OF NOTE, is the statement "several choices of models for the transition "...note that he is acknowledging the distinction between high penetration of current, and shallow...

I have been stating, and re-stating....THE USE OF THE NORMAL ISOTROPIC PROPAGATION of a signal at right angles to the conductor surface, is incorrect...it is the high frequency shallow penetration model, INACCURATELY used to characterize an entirely different scenario..

It was your claims about hollow core wiring that is at odds with common sense and industrial practice for high power low frequency transmission
I have absolutely no idea what "claims" I've made that are at odds with common sense or industrial practices. I did point out the fact that the power companies stopped using solid copper when the diameter of the copper exceeded 4 inches, as the current density in the center of conductors larger than that does not justify the added weight. Here at work, we just naturally use flat copper plates when we get into the 20 to 30 Kiloamp range, but that is more for the accessibility and working of 1 and 2 inch thick copper plate. And for long, 10 kiloamp runs, we will indeed use hollow copper, water cooled pipes. Copper, after all, is quite expensive.

I do know that you do not seem to understand what I've been saying. Instead of jumping on my case with statements such as "I was paraphrasing jneutron when he threw out textbook understanding of field theory, and "Talk about an unsupported thesis". you should be asking questions..what I've been talking about eludes most..you are jumping the gun, and by doing so, are not demonstrating an adequate understanding of e/m field theory

TECHNOLOGY based on bad science rarely works as advertised.
I would say it never does..

I admit I was mocking a little bit when I referred to those claims he made earlier, and did not properly point out the source of the claims
And I will admit that I have so far, put up with your mocking attitude, without calling your lack of understanding to the table..

If you have any actual technical questions, I am always ready to talk shop..If your sole purpose is to mock and criticize me simply because you do not understand the field theory correctly, then at least you have identified both your attitude, and your level of expertise in the subject..

My understanding of this subject exceeds the bounds of your experience, as well as most of the writers you will be able to direct me to in your attempts at proving me incorrect (which I may add, is just fine..that is part of discussion of differences of opinion), and I must add, that there's NINE gentlemen within 100 feet of me, who make my understanding of this topic, shall we say...weak, insignificant, pale in comparison?? (talk about working in a humbling environment.) So if you actually show me something I don't understand, all it takes is a short walk...lord knows, I can use the exercise...:-).

Your last link, the author didn't calculate a trivially simple inductance problem correctly...off by a factor of 15??? What's up with that? Didn't you read the link first?

I prefer reasonable civil dialogue...I hope that is why you are here..

Now..in the hopes that you are hear to discuss civilly...a picture..this is an old one, I can't recall the source..
It is a comparison between the exponential model you seem to believe, as well as everyone else, vs the exact solution for current density within a conductor..

Note how badly the exponential matches? The TEM model does not work over the audio band..unfortunately, it is the easiest to understand and use...

And, that is only at one current level..penetration depth, or better stated, exclusion of current from within, is entirely based on the eddy currents opposing the current...so, penetration depends on the absolute rate of change of current, as that is what generates the internal eddy currents...

What was the current level in this example? Who knows...but, the exponential model doesn't require the current be known, as it by nature, defines the current as a result of the characteristic impedance of copper, while the exact solution has the current as a variable, just like regular wire..Oh, also wanted to mention...the exp. model is the one Hawksford used, so he of course received incorrect results..his model, as does yours, expresses the TEM wave going into the copper as the orthogonal components of the circumferential magnetic field lines and the voltage gradient along the axis of the wire, with the radial direction of prop....Unfortunately, the voltage drop along the axis is a direct sum of the resistive drop and the inductive drop during current slew (you know, the storing of inductive energy). But, I fear I'm injecting too much detail, as first you must learn the limitations of the model you have hung your hat on..Once you understand, then we can get down to some cool discussion..I hate limiting the technical stuff to such a rudimentary level.

I've also learned to plant only one picture per post...it helps to see it and the dialogue..

Cheers, John

PS...please read the posts more carefully. If you do not understand, just ask..

Toga
03-03-2005, 08:32 AM
"My understanding of this subject exceeds the bounds of your experience, as well as most of the writers you will be able to direct me to in your attempts at proving me incorrect"

It is for this reason ONLY I mock you jneutron. Many of your posts present this Elitist flavor of thinking, and while I applaud the scaling of your expertise in relation to your mentors or colleagues, you are skating on thin ice in the face of a vast proportion of the ACTUAL ENGINEERS AND TECHNICAL PRACTITIONERS of the Audio Industry. So I too can "walk a few feet" and speak with the designers of amplifiers, loudspeaker drivers, electrical components, and systems used by literally MILLIONS of people all over the world and they LAUGH at viewpoints and models that are used to exaggerate the audible effects of typically utilized wire.

In your own post you mention using flat conductors as one of my original posts mentioned, because they are far more practical to manufacture than cylinders. I have no doubt by the time you scale up conductors to over 4", "wasted copper" begins to justify specialized manufacturing (tube bending).

The posts I am trying to show you are where real guys with real test gear that do this all day every day in AUDIO have made MEASUREMENTS that comfortably downplay fear mongering regarding actual skin effect on transmission of upper octave frequencies at audio-scaled power levels, also assuming things like around 10M of cable max, 4 to 8 ohm loads, etc.

You can't hide the truth behind equation juggling. Check out these links for more MEASUREMENTS on signal loss in these typical scenarios. If your non-TEM theory does not predict the losses as they are measured, then it is misapplied. I'll believe Belden's math until measurements disprove it.

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/skineeffectaudiocables.php
“Actual measured increase in AC Resistance due to Skin Effect at 20 kHz is less than 3%. See the results in our Cable Face Off Article for more details.”
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/skineeffectaudiocables2.php
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/skineeffectaudiocables3.php

http://bwcecom.belden.com/college/techpprs/tpsemird.htm


http://bwcecom.belden.com/Art/Colimg/SRTLATPF.gif

It occurs to me that rather than out of ignorance, current scalar terms are left out of the skin effect equation precisely because at the magnitudes in audio applications they aren't relevant. The original decision to leave the terms out may not be as obvious to practitioners, some of whom may ignore them out of lack of awareness. You have repeatedly made references to extremely high current applications where eddy current losses become significant. For a typical listening test done perhaps around 90dB with 110dB signal peaks, the average RMS currents at any frequency in a speaker cable would be around 350mA, given a 90dB efficiency loudspeaker system driven at 1W RMS AVG @ 8Ohms. My suspicion is that your graph above elevates the missing terms into BECOMING important at "20KA - 30KA". This is precisely why actual audio measurements of signal strength at high frequencies at the speaker terminals do not show the effects you describe.

jneutron
03-03-2005, 09:19 AM
It is for this reason ONLY I mock you jneutron. Many of your posts present this Elitist flavor of thinking, and while I applaud the scaling of your expertise in relation to your mentors or colleagues, you are skating on thin ice in the face of a vast proportion of the ACTUAL ENGINEERS AND TECHNICAL PRACTITIONERS of the Audio Industry. So I too can "walk a few feet" and speak with the designers of amplifiers, loudspeaker drivers, electrical components, and systems used by literally MILLIONS of people all over the world and they LAUGH at viewpoints and models that are used to exaggerate the audible effects of typically utilized wire.
From the length of your posts, especially the one word or two ones, it is not possible to figure out what you are saying..at least, these newer, longer ones have some meaning..

At least now I see where you are getting your information..AH....geeze, go figure.

Before you attempt to impress me with links to AH articles, do me a big favor.....Ask Gene D (you know, the owner of AH) who the people are who he asks to proof his more technical writeups...yah, you guessed it...he occasionally quotes me, and continues to beat on me to write some articles for him, covering the exact stuff I'm explaining to you.. Sorry you were unaware that I do that, as I do not use my name as a forum moniker, but I certainly am aware of all the AH stuff..having had a hand in some of the more technical ones. It is a shame we live in a world where one has to live behind a moniker..

This "elitist" flavor, which you take great pride in noticing, is a direct result of you blatently mocking what you don't understand..this I state, because at the end of your post, you again present the incorrect skin equation...and I tire of your increasingly arrogant flavor, hence the explanation that you know very little..tempered by the statement that I am certainly not the top of the food chain either, I work with them..

If you read the Belden writeup you pointed to, you should realize that they are still talking about propagation normal to the surface of the copper foil....not the effect of current redistribution...

Hey, if you still don't believe me, go ask Gene D...he will forward your questions to me..I'm saving you the middle man..

In your own post you mention using flat conductors as one of my original posts mentioned, because they are far more practical to manufacture than cylinders. I have no doubt by the time you scale up conductors to over 4", "wasted copper" begins to justify specialized manufacturing (tube bending).
That, and a crane to pick the stuff up.

The posts I am trying to show you are where real guys with real test gear that do this all day every day in AUDIO have made MEASUREMENTS that comfortably downplay fear mongering regarding actual skin effect on transmission of upper octave frequencies at audio-scaled power levels, also assuming things like around 10M of cable max, 4 to 8 ohm loads, etc.
The point I am making, is that if you are trying to point me towards my own quotes to support your argument that I am incorrect....that doesn't work.

You can't hide the truth behind equation juggling. Check out these links for more MEASUREMENTS on signal loss in these typical scenarios. If your non-TEM theory does not predict the losses as they are measured, then it is misapplied. I'll believe Belden's math until measurements disprove it.
You still do not understand...Belden's math in that particular instance, is correct..but that is the skin equation for TEM propagation normal to the surface...and does not apply to what I am talking about..

I fear that I am going to have to bow to Gene's request, to write those articles explaining all this stuff, as I have never been put into the situation where someone like you is trying to prove me incorrect by using articles I either co-wrote, proofed, or contributed to...a weird scenario at the least..

Perhaps if you see what I have posted here, on AH, then it will be...more credible??

Oh, and btw...I do not exaggerate. I will formulate, I will hypothesize, I will design, I will test, I will present...but I do not exaggerate.

Cheers, John

Toga
03-03-2005, 09:40 AM
LOL jneutron, that is a funny situation. :)

However, I am still trying to reconcile your model claims, with measurements that you seem to be denying. Please tell all of us cable interested people, HOW MUCH SIGNAL LOSS WE SHOULD EXPECT BASED ON YOUR ASSUMPTIONS at 10KHz, 20KHz, using 10m of regular 12ga. speaker cable. Then, using your predictions, we can compare to measurements already made using differential display techniques. I have a stack of laboratory grade amplifiers (Crown), Tektronix gear, low inductance power resistors, and 33 feet of “regular” 12ga. I’ll do the darned test myself, at any reasonable current level.

If you say we should lose -3dB, we can test it. If you say it is -10dB, we can test it. If your model somehow shows it is -0.09db when it is really tested at -0.06dB, but the TEM model showed it was -0.03dB, then we will indeed be in an interesting position. You will be showing a different model that proves only subtle degradation of signal at frequency extremes similar to what the "wrong" model has already concluded. I really am after the truth here, not just picking on you for your attitude.

That way, we will get away from your claimed credentials, and find out something relevant to the interests of people on this board. Are the claims of specialty cable designers true... or are they fraud?!

BTW, calling me arrogant as a defense for my calling you arrogant... is kinda like me quoting something that you reviewed that seems at odds with claims you make? I'm CHALLENGING you, and you hate it. I'm pretty much leaving out your constant allusions to my "ignorance" from my posts, as I ask YOU questions. I just don't think you like my daring to question you. Hmmm...

jneutron
03-03-2005, 10:22 AM
LOL jneutron, that is a funny situation. :)
Funny is certainly one word for it....Honestly, I found it weird..I was rolling on the floor at the situation when I realized you were pointing to AH.

That way, we will get away from your claimed credentials,
Actually, I have claimed that I know more than you...which of course, was a response to your mockery..normally, I can't be bothered with saying that crap..and I claimed that some guys here are much smarter than me...you're just gonna hafta believe that part, and it's easy enough to verify my input into AH articles...just look for this quote here:
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/zipcordcableinductance.php

The theory behind negligible inductance at high frequencies is within a wire carrying DC, there is a uniform current density profile. The magnetic flux within the wire is zero at the geometric center, and increases linearly in value as you move towards the surface of the wire. Outside the wire, the field drops off as 1/R. When a conductor is skinning heavily, as in RF, all the current has moved to the outside surface of the conductor. From the field equations, the field within an infinitely thin cylindrical sheet of current is zero. So, at infinite frequency, the internal portion of the wire has no field, hence, no energy stored, and no inductance. That is how the skin effect alters the internal inductance of the wire.

Or here:
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/speakercablefaceoff01.php
at infinite frequency, the internal portion of the wire has no field, hence, no energy stored, and no inductance

However, I am still trying to reconcile your model claims, with measurements that you seem to be denying. Please tell all of us cable interested people, HOW MUCH SIGNAL LOSS WE SHOULD EXPECT BASED ON YOUR ASSUMPTIONS at 10KHz, 20KHz, using 10m of regular 12ga. speaker cable.
Disagreeing or questioning is par for the course, I prefer that to blind acceptance..so your questions or disagreement are actually better..

You are thinking of signal loss...that is not what I've been driving at with my research.. it's time shift.

Humans are sensitive to drastically small time shifts, order of 1 to 5 uSec, and from what I'm now working on, for localization, they may be sensitive to absurdly small level variations, quite a ways below what is typically considered accepted JND. This is, in fact, one part of the test regimen I'm working on..but I hadn't realized how small IID has to be to even localize at the one foot level, that I haven't progressed far enough to even bandy a number about..

With inductive storage, it isn't loss, it's the lag...stored energy within the cable eventually goes somewhere, that be the speaker..but because inductive storage is lagging by 90 degrees, and the capacitive storage within the wires is also lagging, the result is a shift in timing..this is what I am looking to test (ITD).

I calculated the energy storage a while back, and found that the energy storage within the cable is approximately 4% of the energy of one lobe of a 10Khz sine..this arrives at the load, 90 degrees lagging..and, much to my suprise, when I plotted the characteristic impedance of the speaker wire vs the energy storage, I found that it is a minima when Z<sub>cable</sub> equalled Z<sub>load</sub>. graph attached..gotta have dem gratuitious graphs..:-)

Then, using your predictions, we can compare to measurements already made using differential display techniques. I have a stack of laboratory grade amplifiers (Crown), Tektronix gear, low inductance power resistors, and 33 feet of ?regular? 12ga. I?ll do the darned test myself, at any reasonable current level.
You need a non inductive load...even dale nh 250's, while bifilar to remove solenoidal inductance, still suffers from physical size..this renders measurement of high current slew damn near impossible with any accuracy. My load, version 2, measures 1.2 nHenries, with zero intercepted B dot error (this is magnetic field collapse loop generated error voltages, which cannot be avoided by normal techniques.) And, you will need a pair of fast IA's to break the loop around the DUT..and a coupla fast CVR's.

I am still developing the test equipment required to perform the tests with any accuracy..and building the loads and electronics.

What kind of power resistor have you that is "non inductive"? The caddocks still have their problems, as do BeO microwave coaxial ones..

If you say we should lose -3dB, we can test it. If you say it is -10dB, we can test it. If your model somehow shows it is -0.09db when it is really tested at -0.06dB, but the TEM model showed it was -0.03dB, then we will indeed be in an interesting position, You will be showing a different model that proves only subtle degradation of signal at frequency extremes similar to what the "wrong" model has already concluded.
In my research, I have found that the model of audibility of humans, is only one of a "single speaker" type, while localization is an entirely different animal..localization requires timing fidelity channel to channel on the order of a microsecond or two, this is not gonna be easy..and as far as I know, nobody out there has characterized an amplifier to that level, in a reactive load, in all four quadrants of operation..

I really am after the truth here, not just picking on you for your attitude.
My "attitude", is a direct result of your mocking without understanding..you do not yet understand skin theory (which is a trivial issue btw, as most don't anyway..they learn in school, exactly what you and I did, I only learned better as a result of work with superconducting magnets), and your not understanding what I am all about. Repeatable, documented, per reviewed results are all that matter..but, what to test has been lacking, so I work on that as a precursor..

Are the claims of specialty cable designers true... or are they fraud?!
The explanations I've seen are ridiculously incorrect. However, in reviewing human localization capability, I certainly cannot take the approach that "we already know everything there is about the topic".

Toga
03-03-2005, 11:32 AM
I did ask you about what you thought thresholds were for time arrival differences in another post. You posted a graph that showed time arrival information, but no human perception levels. I agree it would be interesting to discover where these lie, again to attain design guidelines. At first I thought you didn't understand what I was asking. I see now you are unsure about an answer and are planning to try and discover it.

I DO like that!

I'm very curious what results you will get. I will also be looking for prior art, as my own experience tells me that we may not be THAT good at localization (<1uS range).

You won't be surprised that I don't agree with your assumptions about "perfect" inductors, which indeed exhibit lag behavior being -90 degrees, since other factors can put this in a spread of 0 to -90. Signal reflections from impedance mismatches again have to be related to perceptual capability based on ratios of energy emitted by the load.

The frightening reality is that component tolerances used in professional audio gear are egregious. Often +/-20%, but even +/-1% in cumulative error is enough to ruin localization at the level you are suggesting we could hear. Ironically, Sonic Holography or Binaural recordings could help greatly. In the case of headphone use double blind testing could occur WITHOUT the influence of interaural crosstalk, speaker placement, radiation patterns, crossover phase shifts, and higher than signal level wire currents. Much of this could all be avoided in even decent headphones. Instead of relying on recorded signals, the testing could be done in a "live" setting with carefully channel matched minimalist circuitry between the microphones and the headphones. Much like at the Optometrist's (is this different from this?)! Sound sources could be actual acoustical instruments, like a clacker. Its exciting to even think about the determination being attempted...

The resistor array of a low inductance design is in line with the kind of impedance curve observed in a leaf tweeter. As you will note, I said LOW inductance, such that the reactance is negligible in the face of the overall DC resistance at audio frequencies. This would be as ideal a load as you would encounter in a speaker. Another alternative would be using a well regarded Morel MDT33 1" dome tweeter, which unlike a say a JVC leaf tweeter, can tolerate higher short-term power dissipation. Arguments about low inductance could be set aside since this is a typical high frequency driver arrangement. Low duty cycle tone bursts at upper power levels and a digital storage scope would allow the display of amplitude AND time domain differences between the amplifier and DUT leads, with the difference caused by the intervening interface (speaker wire).

Toga
03-03-2005, 11:43 AM
Wait jneutron!

I think I've tripped over a bias in my approach to you, leading to disrespect. I assumed you MAKE AND SELL AUDIO CABLE, or INTEND TO. Please be honest about this, because it does color my judgement when someone purports to have new science unavailable to or not understood by the mainstream technical community, as a justification for financial gain. If instead your primary motivation is sharing what you have learned in a rarified area of study in EM theory and applications, you become a valuable resource for such information to the audio community if you can show you are right in both theory and testing. See where I'm coming from?

This is not to say it is impossible that an ethical researcher/business person can't be one and the same person. But we live in a world where that just doesn't happen very often. I've asked before, what is left to sell that is better, when science might show the differences that are there don't matter?

jneutron
03-03-2005, 11:52 AM
[COLOR=Navy]I did ask you about what you thought thresholds were for time arrival differences in another post. You posted a graph that showed time arrival information, but no human perception levels.
The human perception levels found by Nordmark were at the 1.5 uSec level, but it was headphone stimulus, with injected jitter at about the same level.

Further research (Bernstein, Zwislocki and Feldman, Klumpp and Eady, etc..) shows the data all over the map, Z and F peaking at 6 uSec, at 1Khz, Blauert actually drawing a line to zero uSec from 100 uSec, implying linear to zero...SAM tone stimulus..

That graph was the first run for me to figure out what kind of time resolution I have to design the loads and vtaps for. I still have difficulty believing 1.5 uSec resolution, that's down in the single digit inch resolution...

I agree it would be interesting to discover where these lie, again to attain design guidelines. At first I thought you didn't understand what I was asking. I see now you are unsure about an answer and are planning to try and discover it.
I DO like that!.
You are beginning to understand me..it is unfortunate, this medium of communication..as so many things are mis-interpreted..body language is a key part of comminication.

You won't be surprised that I don't agree with your assumptions about "perfect" inductors, which indeed exhibit lag behavior being -90 degrees, since other factors can put this in a spread of 0 to -90. Signal reflections from impedance mismatches again have to be related to perceptual capability based on ratios of energy emitted by the load.
No, I'm not suprised..that's ok.. As for signal reflections, it's too low a frequency...normally, I wouldn't break out the smith chart for speaker runs..:-)

I only showed the total energy storage, because the relationship suprised me...I'm designing coaxial cables to test, and that just popped out and smacked me upside the head.

As for low inductance, I'm trying to get a factor of 100 better than anything that may confound the measurement...yah, a nanohenry is a tad small, but after all, it's my quarter, so I gotta have some fun.

Cheers, John

jneutron
03-03-2005, 12:25 PM
Wait jneutron!

I think I've tripped over a bias in my approach to you, leading to disrespect. I assumed you MAKE AND SELL AUDIO CABLE, or INTEND TO. Please be honest about this, because it does color my judgement when someone purports to have new science unavailable to or not understood by the mainstream technical community, as a justification for financial gain. If instead your primary motivation is sharing what you have learned in a rarified area of study in EM theory and applications, you become a valuable resource for such information to the audio community if you can show you are right in both theory and testing. See where I'm coming from?
Yup. I do not sell anything audio..wires, cables, nothing..I have no real intention to do so at the moment, but with the DOE budget as it is, there is a possibility that I may hafta find something else to do in the future. There are not that many superconducting magnet customers out there, especially when the cheap ones are about 500K dollars apiece..

So, maybe in the future, I will have to sell something...for now, I find the entire thing very interesting from a scientific view, and enjoy the learning.

I certainly can understand your initial attitude if I were a cable vendor...since that has been resolved, we can talk technical stuff..

It will be about a year or so before I will be able to get some real results with the electrical setup, as I do this in my spare time..but, I have no financial stake in this, so I work at my own pace..and discuss with others, such as you..

Cheers, John

Shwamdoo
03-05-2005, 04:10 PM
WOAH! Way over my head...

I'll be leaving now... :)